Preamble

The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Caerphilly Urban District Council Bill, Exeter Corporation Bill,

Llandudno Urban District Council Bill,

Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give the number of cases in which each year since the Armistice to date widows have made application for a pension on the death of their husbands, stating how many of these cases have been admitted and how many rejected and, in addition, in how many of the former cases the dead men were receiving no pension at the time of death?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): As the answer involves a considerable number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It is not possible to give the information asked for in the first part of the question exactly in the form desired, in view of the fact that claims made in one year may in many cases not be finally decided either by the Ministry or, on appeal, by the Appeal Tribunal until the succeeding year. The following figures, however, show for each calendar year since 1920—the earliest date for which
reliable records were kept—the approximate number of claims made by widows which were decided by the Ministry or the Tribunal and the awards made:


Year.
Number of claims decided.
Number of awards of pension made.


1920
…
…
11,500
9,700


1921
…
…
13,250
8,100


1922
…
…
9,200
5,600


1923
…
…
9,250
4,550


1924
…
…
9,500
4,250


1925
…
…
8,450
3,500


1926
…
…
4,700
2,400


1927
…
…
3,500
1,900

The Ministry's records do not enable the information asked for in the last part of the question to be given.

TREATMENT.

Sir W. de FRECE: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether there are any cases in which an ex-service man suffering from an incurable disability contracted through war service is not entitled to any form of treatment: and, if so, what is the explanation?

Major TRYON: I am not clear what type of case my hon. Friend has in mind. A pensioner would always be entitled to receive any course of treatment necessary for a condition which was found by my medical advisers to be due to his war service.

Oral Answers to Questions — THEATRICAL EMPLOYERS' REGISTRATION ACT.

Mr. DAY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he will state the names of the seven registration authorities under the Theatrical Employers' Registration Act, 1925, who have written to the Home Office in support of the resolutions passed by the London County Council in February, 1927?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The seven registration authorities are the County Councils of Middlesex, Surrey and the West Riding of Yorkshire, and the City Councils of Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle-on-Tyne.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything is being done to carry out the recommendations or resolutions passed by those councils?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have given a full answer to the question of the hon. Member, and I am not prepared to answer further questions without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

WOMEN.

Viscountess ASTOR: 8.
asked the Home Secretary how many of the women who were employed as women police at the time when Sir William Horwood was appointed Chief Commissioner have ceased to be so employed and have been replaced by others?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The strength of the Metropolitan Women Police, which was 105 when the Commissioner was appointed, was reduced in 1922 to 20, as a measure of economy. It has since been increased to 50. Sixteen of the 20 women who were retained on reduction of establishment were serving on the date of the Commissioner's appointment and are still serving.

Viscountess ASTOR: 9.
asked the Home Secretary what officer or officers have carried out the duties which were performed by Mrs. F. Stanley when she was superintendent of women patrols, Metropolitan Police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The duties, in so far as they have not lapsed with the reduced establishment and altered organisation, have since been performed by an inspector, Miss A. Clayden.

Miss WILKINSON: Are there any women in any kind of position of authority at Scotland Yard, or are they all in subordinate positions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: One is an inspector.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that nobody has taken the place of Mrs. Stanley; and is it not also true that, if Mrs. Stanley had been at Scotland Yard, there would never have been the scandal which is now going on?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The first part of that question is a hypothetical one; and, as to the second part, it prejudges the decision of the Committee which is now sitting, and I am quite sure that my Noble Friend would not wish to do that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the evidence before the Home Secretary show that employment as police has a degrading effect upon women?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no evidence of that.

TRAFFIC DUTIES, LONDON.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 13.
asked the Home Secretary the number of Metropolitan police on traffic duty at noon on 20th June, 1922 and 1928, respectively?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number at noon on 20th June, 1922, was 542 and on 20th June, 1928, was 915. The former figure includes 16 officers employed in consequence of Ascot Races and 12 in consequence of the International Horse Show, and the latter figure includes 224 officers employed in consequence of Ascot Races.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Would it not be well to take some action in the direction of forming a special corps to deal with traffic control?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If by a special corps the hon. and gallant Gentleman means, not men who are policemen, but a special body of men representing the motor organisation, that is already being tried in country districts. I should have very grave doubts as to whether men who have no power and who are net sworn in as policemen could possibly undertake the management of traffic in great cities.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the ordinary duties of the police are not suffering, and when does he contemplate increasing the Metropolitan Police Force?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have often said in the House that I am not altogether satisfied with the number of police, but we are getting on as well as we can.

Captain BRASS: May I ask whether the police dressed in plain clothes who are working in police traps are included in these numbers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think not, if they are not police engaged in traffic control.

TRADE UNION MEETINGS.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he makes Regulations laying down conditions under which the members of a county or borough police force may demand the right to attend and be present at a meeting of members convened under the auspices and control of a recognised branch of a registered trade union organisation established in this country; and the purport of such Regulations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made no such Regulations.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: May I assume that the police have no right to attend a private meeting of an organised branch of any trade union?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that they have any such right unless they are asked by the chairman to come in.

PUBLIC MEETINGS.

Lieut-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: 15.
asked the Home Secretary if he will give particulars of any Regulations made by his Department under which members of a county or borough police force may claim to attend and remain present at a publicly convened mass meeting, notwithstanding that they may be requested by the chairman and organisers of the meeting to retire?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are no such Regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions — HYDE PARK (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. DAY: 10.
asked the Home Secretary the number of charges for indecency brought by the police under the Hyde Park Regulations for the month of May, 1928; and how many of these charges were supported by other than police evidence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is none. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. DAY: With reference to the very large number in the previous month, I would like to ask if special instructions were given to the police to try to obtain corroborative evidence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question put to me relates to the number of charges for indecency, and the answer is that there were none in the month of May of this year.

Mr. DAY: The point I want to make is that in the previous month there were 64 cases, of which only one was supported by corroborative evidence. May I ask whether the reason for this great reduction is that special instructions have been given to the police to try to obtain corroborative evidence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; the hon. Member must form his own conclusion as to the reasons for the falling off.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean, as I hope was the case, that there has been an improvement in public manners in Hyde Park, or that the police have been hampered by recent events in carrying out their duties?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. and gallant Member will see that these questions are putting me in a very difficult position. The fact is clear that there was an average number of from 30 to 40 cases per month in the previous months, and since certain events there have been none, and that is what always follows in regard to similar events. I hope that before very long the police will resume their normal activities. I must confess that I cannot say that there is any change in the position of affairs.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is, the Home Secretary aware that a great majority of the Members of this House and the public outside are ready to support him in properly administering the law?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, the position is an exceedingly difficult one. I am exceedingly anxious not to take any false step in the matter, and I would ask him to leave it to me.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 7.
asked the Home Secretary
the number of monthly arrests for misconduct in Hyde Park during the first five months of 1927 and 1928, respectively; and the number of similar arrests for the first three weeks of June in both years?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME-DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): As the details are rather long, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the details:

The following are the numbers of arrests per month for certain offences in Hyde Park this year and during the corresponding period last year:


A.—Indecency. (Arrests under Hyde Park Regulations.)


Month.
1927.
1928.




M.
P.
M.
F.


January
…
22
20
4
5


February
…
31
31
81
32


March
…
27
26
23
24


April
…
10
8
31
33


May
…
11
12
—
—


June (1–19)
…
3
3
—
—

B.—Soliciting. (Arrests under ordinarylaw.M)


Month.
1927.
1928.


January
…
…
30
28


February
…
…
30
20


March
…
…
38
11


April
…
…
18
7


May
…
…
27
—


June (1–19)
…
…
15
—

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (MR. HARRY THAW).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether the passport of Mr. Harry Thaw, an American citizen, was endorsed by the British authorities in America before he sailed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The papers produced by Mr. Thaw on his arrival in the United Kingdom carried, I believe, a British visa granted in America before he sailed. But every alien
seeking to land in the United Kingdom must obtain leave to land, and this was refused to Mr. Thaw.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is there any liaison between the authorities in the United States and the authorities here?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have caused an inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which the visa was granted.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why Mr. Thaw was prevented from entering this country, while at the same time Mr. "A" was allowed to enter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no jurisdiction in regard to anyone who is not an alien. Mr. Thaw was an alien, and I thought it was undesirable that he should have permission to come into this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGHT CLUBS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether, especially in view of recent cases, he proposes to introduce legislation to deal with bogus night clubs in the Metropolitan area?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Home Secretary satisfied with his present powers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member has referred to recent cases. My present powers have nothing to do with them.

Viscountess ASTOR: Was it not General Sir Nevil Macready, the Chief Commissioner of Police, who said that women police trained and qualified under proper superintendence would be a great help in dealing with night clubs, and will the Home Secretary hear that in mind when he is considering the question of increasing the Metropolitan Police Force?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling against women police, and will be remember that fact?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All relevant considerations will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — GLOUCESTER ASSIZES (WOMEN PRISONERS).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 16.
asked the Home Secretary what, if any, accommodation is provided for women prisoners appearing before the Gloucester assizes; whether it is customary to bring prisoners each day from Birmingham Prison to Gloucester, entailing thereby journeys of more than 200 miles each day; and whether he will arrange for the provision of more satisfactory accommodation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no women's wing at Gloucester Prison and the usual practice is to bring women prisoners from Birmingham. In a case now pending where it is anticipated that the trial may last more than one day, special arrangements have been made to lodge the woman in a detached part of Gloucester Prison, under the care of female officers.

Oral Answers to Questions — MRS. PHYLLIS GRACE CANALS.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Phyllis Grace Canals, a British-born woman, deported in 1926; whether he is aware that this woman had married an undesirable alien; that she is now left stranded in the British hospital in Paris after being stabbed by her husband; that her father and sister in this country have offered themselves as guarantors on her behalf if she is permitted to return to this country; and whether he will have the circumstances of this case re-examined with a view to cancellation of the deportation order?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This case is well known to me. She has twice married an alien and both husbands were undesirable. The second husband was deported by me in 1926, and I made a similar Order in regard to the wife. She had been convicted many times for solicitation and similar offences. On representations made to me, I gave her another chance, but warned her of the consequences if she were again convicted. She was again convicted three times
within four months; accordingly she was deported. The father had offered to look after her before her deportation, but she did not live respectably. She has lived as a prostitute in Paris for some months. The case appears to be hopeless, but, if the hon. Member can help me in any way to get her into better surroundings, he will not find me hard in the matter.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it the case that both the British and the Spanish consuls in Paris have recommended that this woman should be given another chance, in the circumstances in which she finds herself?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: They rather want to get her away from Paris, but, until I can be satisfied that she is not coming back on to the streets of London as a prostitute, and that she will be well cared for, I do not propose to let her come back into this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOLS).

Mr. THURTLE: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Education in how many parishes in England the only school is a church school?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The available information relates to rural areas only, and indicates that there are about 5,000 civil parishes in such areas in England where the only public elementary school is a denominational school.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Does the same thing apply to Wales?

Lord E. PERCY: I am not sure whether this covers Wales or not.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. FENBY: 20.
asked the Minister of Health whether an announcement as to the future of the Rent Restrictions Acts will be made before the end of the present Session?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. I hope to be able to make an announcement before the end of the Session.

BECONTREE ESTATE.

Viscount SANDON: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the position which has arisen at Becontree, where there are 600 newly-erected houses for which neither tenants nor purchasers can be found, he will say what action it is proposed to take in future to ensure that public money is not spent on building houses where they are not needed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that certain abnormal circumstances accounted for over 600 houses at one time being empty on the Becontree Housing Estate, but that the number has now been considerably reduced, and that the question of the future development of this estate is under consideration by the London County Council. In the meantime, I do not think I am called upon to take any action in the matter.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the number as now reduced?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Something over 400.

Mr. MARCH: Is it because of the high rents charged for the houses?

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the percentage of letting is now normal, and that, as the houses have been turned out very rapidly, running into hundreds, there is no abnormal number of empties?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think that that is so.

SUBSIDY.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received the declaration of the Association of Midland Local Authorities Conference regarding the withdrawal of the housing subsidy being delayed till 1930; and if he is now prepared to consider this request favourably?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not appear to have received the declaration referred to, but I would point out that the Statutory review of the subsidy at present payable cannot be undertaken until after the 1st October next, and I cannot anticipate what the result of that review will be. I have, however, already given an assurance that houses completed by
the 31st March, 1929, will, if otherwise eligible, qualify for subsidy at the existing rates.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WELSH BOARD OF HEALTH.

Mr. MARDY JONES: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the objections which are being taken in Wales to the reduction in the status of the Welsh Board of Health; and will be give the reasons for the policy adopted?

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any intention of appointing a chairman of the Welsh Board of Health at any time in future?

Mr. JOHN: 24.
asked the Minister of Health who is the present member for Wales on the National Health Insurance Joint Committee; who will be the member in future; and whether Mr. John Rowland, a member of the Welsh Board of Health, is to act as deputy for him?

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the proposed changes in the status of the Welsh Board of Health are the subject of disapproval in Wales; and whether he will take early steps to restore the offices of chairman and secretary, and to secure for the Board proper representation on the joint consultative committee?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reasons for the new arrangements were fully stated in the answer given to the hon. Member for Cardiff East (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) on the 25th instant. I am aware that objections lave been raised to these arrangements. These objections seem to me to a large extent based on misunderstandings, and I must in particular demur to the suggestion that the status of the Board has been lowered. I do not anticipate that there will be any need for the appointment of a chairman or a secretary in the future. The present member of the National Health Insurance Joint Committee appointed by me under Section 88 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, as
a person having special knowledge and experience of National Health Insurance in Wales,
is the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker), and I do not propose to make any change. I have appointed Mr. John Rowland to succeed Sir Thomas Hughes as deputy to the hon. Member for Monmouth at meetings of the Committee at which the hon. Member is unable to be present.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Are we to understand that in future there will be no chairman or secretary of the Welsh Board of Health; and, if that be so, does not the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that this Board was established in recognition of the claims of Wales to administer its health affairs from a Welsh point of view and in accordance with the desires of the Welsh people; and is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable resentment has been created throughout the length and breadth of Wales by his action in this matter, and that in Wales this is regarded as a national insult?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I have already dealt with that point in the answer which I have given. In reply to the second part, I do not agree that there is any alteration in the status or functions of the Welsh Board of Health, which will in future, as in the past, carry on the work rather in its individual capacity than in its collective capacity. As to the resentment which has been stirred up by various people in Wales, I am not aware that that extends over the length and breadth of the country, and I think that, if the facts were more fully understood, any resentment that may have been felt would be at once dissipated.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: Will the Minister receive a deputation from the Welsh Members to discuss this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; I never refuse to receive a deputation from any of my colleagues in this House.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can this body, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as a Board if in future it is not to have either a chairman or a secretary?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not a Board in the ordinary sense of the word.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is it not the case that, when this Board was originally established by Act of Parliament, it was so established in recognition of the claim of Wales to have its health affairs administered by a Board national in outlook, with a chairman; and how, without a chairman, can this Board be responsible to Wales as a nation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Act says nothing about a chairman.

Mr. MARDY JONES: May I ask what is the right hon. Gentleman's authority for his denial of my statement that, as is on the records of the House, this Board was so established in recognition of the claim of Wales to deal with its own health affairs in that way?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not deny that; what I denied was that the Act which set up the Board provided for the appointment of a chairman, and I still maintain that.

Mr. MARDY JONES: If that be admitted, how does the Board function as a national body without a chairman and without a responsible head? In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply that has been given, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can make any statement to the House on the future constitution of the Welsh Board of Health; whether it is proposed permanently to reduce that body to three; and if he will state what the number of the body was when originally set up?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Welsh Board of Health consisted of three members when it was originally constituted. At a later date the administrative officer for public health became an ex-officio member of the Board. With regard to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, East (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) on the 25th instant.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think, as it has been found necessary to appoint a chairman and secretary, that that ought to continue?

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (DOCKYARD APPRENTICES).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 42.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a candidate who has passed an open competitive examination for His Majesty's dockyard held by the Civil Service Commissioners and who has served an apprenticeship in His Majesty's dockyard, is entitled to take advantage of Clause 1 (ii) of the regulations respecting open competitive examinations for situations as officer of customs and excise (male), which provides that candidates who have served in any established civil situation to which they were admitted with the certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners may deduct from their actual age any time not exceeding two years which they may have spent in such service?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): An apprenticeship in His Majesty's Dockyard is not an established civil situation. Accordingly a candidate for admission to an open competition for the situation of officer of Customs and Excise is not entitled by the regulation cited to deduct from his actual age time spent in such apprenticeship.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon Gentleman look into this matter in order to give justice to these employés of the State who are just as well qualified as other servants?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, I will look into the matter, but I do not agree with the implication contained in the supplementary question that they are unjustly treated.

SENIOR POSTS (WOMEN).

Viscountess ASTOR: 43.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what senior posts in the Government Departments are occupied by women; and the nature of the duties attached thereto?

Mr. SAMUEL: With the Noble Lady's permission, I will have a statement prepared and circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, giving the particulars asked for.

TAX OFFICE, CHISWICK.

Colonel MORDEN: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner
of Works, whether his attention has been called to the condition of the Chiswick district tax office; whether he is aware that in every room there are cracks and holes in the walls; that the staircase in places appears to be falling away; that in the basement the crack in the scullery is sufficiently large to see the streets outside from within; and that additional accommodation is much required and cannot be supplied owing to the inability of the floors to stand further pressure; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made and immediate action taken?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I understand that while there are certain defects in the premises, the structural condition of the building as a whole is sound and the accommodation is adequate for the requirements of the occupying staff. The scullery is not part of the main building which will continue to be kept under observation.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEMORANDUM).

Mr. HURD: 31.
asked the Minister of Health by what means he intends to carry out the undertaking of the Government to confer with all the local authorities concerned in the proposed changes in local government areas and services, including roads; and when it is proposed by the Government that any changes resulting from these conferences shall come into operation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have laid before the House a memorandum, dealing fully wish the proposals of the Government in regard to local government and finance. The memorandum will be circulated to the associations of local authorities, and it is my intention to discuss these proposals with representatives of the associations. As regards the second part of the question, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the publication of the memorandum.

Mr. HURD: I suppose we may take it that these changes cannot possibly come into effect until this House has considered and passed a Bill?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is true.

Mr. FENBY: As I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will be issuing a memorandum to the local authorities, will be also place copies of it in the Vote Office, so that Members of the House may have an opportunity of reading it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Copies will be in the Vote Office to-morrow.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Does this memorandum contain the famous formula to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Do the words "including roads" mean all roads?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the word "roads" is mentioned in my answer. The hon. Member must ask my hon. Friend who put down the question.

Mr. HURD: We are not to suppose that roads are excluded from the memorandum?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNCLAIMED BODIES (ANATOMICAL EXAMINATION).

Mr. KELLY: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the reason for the request made by his Department that unclaimed bodies of deceased patients in the Park Prewet and Brook-wood Asylums, and other mental institutions under the Farnham Union, should be handed over to the University of Oxford for anatomical examination?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The request to which the hon. Member refers has been made to these and other similar institutions, in order to assist in the provision, under proper safeguards, of unclaimed bodies for anatomical examination, which is indispensable to medical education.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL WARDS (ADMISSION).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in certain districts boards of guardians compel casuals to apply to the police for tickets of admission to the local casual ward; and whether, seeing that the
majority of casuals are genuine unemployed genuinely seeking employment, he will take the necessary steps to bring this practice to an end?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but it is a common practice that police officers should be appointed as assistant relieving officers and empowered to issue orders for admission to a casual ward. The practice seems to me to be in the interests of the casuals themselves, and I see no reason for suggesting its modification.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the men resent this very much indeed, seeing that it associates unemployment with crime?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me some particulars of what it is he has in mind, because I do not personally know of any such cases.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men whose only fault is that the country will not employ them find themselves in casual wards which they resent very much indeed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will send me particulars of cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX AND SUPER-TAX.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the revenue authorities in the Manchester district are now seeking to impose Income Tax on what they describe as the value of the right to receive annual chief rents on conveyances of land subject to perpetual chief rents, notwithstanding such annual rents are already being taxed; and will he inquire into the matter?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I think that my hon. Friend may be under some misapprehension as to the real question at issue in the matter to which he refers. The Inland Revenue authorities are contending that when property is sold by a taxpayer carrying on the business of dealing in property, the value received for the property, whether it takes the form of cash or of the right to receive
an annual chief rent, should be brought into account in computing the profits of the business for the purposes of assessment to Income Tax under Schedule D.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the uncertainty that exists among visitors from other parts of the British Empire coming to this country with regard to their liability to British Income Tax if they stay here for more than a certain time; whether he is aware that this uncertainty prevents many from coming; whether, in fact, any such time limit is applied in the case of visitors; and whether he will publish in a short and easily intelligible form a memorandum explaining exactly in what circumstances such visitors become liable to British Income Tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Broadly speaking, British Income Tax is chargeable in the case of a person resident in Great Britain or Northern Ireland on all his income wherever arising, and in the case of a person not so resident, on his income derived from sources in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. The difficulties in the case my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind centre round the question whether a person is or is not resident here for Income Tax purposes. This question, as was indicated in recent judgments of the House of Lords, is one of fact and degree to be determined according to the circumstances of each case, and does not lend itself to summary exposition in general terms. The matter is, however, engaging my attention, and certainly I do not wish to discourage the temporary residence in this country of foreign visitors.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Do I understand there is not really any truth in the widely-held belief that, because you stay in England one day over six months, you are ipso facto brought within the net of British Income tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is the case, but I do not like to lay down the law on Income Tax in reply to a supplementary question.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not a fact that, under agreement between the Dominions and this country, if a man becomes liable
for Income Tax in this country, he is exempted in his own Dominion, and vice versa?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are agreements of some such kind, but I was addressing myself more to foreign countries.

Lieut.-Colone JAMES: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the criticisms of Mr. Justice Bowlatt, in the King's Bench Division, on 26th June, on the subject of the interpretation of Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922; whether, in particular, the statements of the learned Judge to the effect that the people of this country are taxed by laws which they cannot understand, and this is the worst example of such legislation that has been put upon the Statute Book, have been brought to his notice; and whether he is prepared to set up an independent Committee to inquire and make recommendations for the clearer drafting of this rule, particularly in relation to the Amendments contained in Sub-section 24 of Section 31 of the Finance Act of 1927, or whether he is himself prepared to take independent action that will relieve the taxpayer of the cost of litigation in the prosecution of his legitimate claims for relief?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to the remarks to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I would remind him that the legislation in question owed its origin to the ingenuity of taxpayers in avoiding liability to the Super-tax, and that its length and complexity are mainly due to the multifarious qualifications made at the instance of hon. Members of this House with a view-to confining its application to the proper cases. I would also remind my hon. and gallant Friend that last year I appointed a Committee to review the whole law relating to Income Tax and Super-tax, and to see in what respects it can be simplified and rendered more intelligible to taxpayers. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has already informed the Houe in another connection, I do not think it is desirable, pending the completion of the Committee's task, to try to deal with the matter piecemeal.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that Judges can criticise legislation and legislators are not permitted to criticise Judges?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERALLIED DEBTS.

Sir JOHN POWER: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to the French debt agreement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no further information on the subject. But I may say that, at the time when we signed the Debt Agreement and accepted the large abatements of our admitted claims, it was a definite understanding that the French Government would make itself responsible for securing the ratification of the Agreement as soon as possible. When M. Poincaré formed his Government, I was assured that he accepted this understanding, and nothing that has since passed justifies the suggestion that the intentions of the French Government are in any way altered. In the meantime, the payments due under the agreement for the financial years 1926–27 have been duly made, and the French Government have undertaken to pay the £8 millions due in the current financial year, half on 15th September next—half on 15th March next.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the length of time which has elapsed since the agreement was made, has the right hon. Gentleman made any recent representations to M. Poincaré urging him to rectify the agreement and thus give us the advantage of certainty, for which alone we sacrificed so large a part of the debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I have made no such representations.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider doing so at the earliest possible date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall not be guided in that matter by any suggestion which may reach me from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The question of our relations with the French in connection with the repayment of this debt is one which has to be handled with proper regard to its gravity.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think he secured the consent of this House to the release of these large sums in consideration of this assurance that the agreement would be ratified by the French Government, and, as that has not been forthcomings he secured the acquiescence of the House under false pretences?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I do not think that is true at all, and I am quite sure the House will not wish the Government to be pressed into taking precipitate or unsuitable action.

Sir J. POWER: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet made arrangements for writing off as a contra account the sum of £135,700,000 given on page 5 of the Financial Statement as the amount of loans from certain Allied Governments.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a similar question put by him on 21st March last. There has been no change in the position since that date.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the duties of the Government directors on the board of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company; and, seeing that the participation of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in a price-fixing ring is a matter of policy affecting the interests of the taxpayer and is distinct from the ordinary questions of management, what instructions have been given to the Government directors.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The duties of the Government Directors do not differ from those of the other Directors on the Board of the Company, save that, in any matter of a financial or general character on which, in their opinion, the directions of the Government should be sought, or on which their advice is desired by the Government, it is their duty to consult, or to report to, the Government as the case may be, and generally to act in accordance with any instructions which may be given to them by the Government in such matters. As regards the latter part of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the
hon. and gallant Member on 26th June. In accordance with an undertaking given by the Treasury to the Company in 1914, referred to in Command Paper No. 7419 of 1914, the Government are under obligation not to interfere in the commercial management of the Company.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Do not the matters which the right hon. Gentleman describes as of a financial or general character include amalgamation, for price-fixing purposes, with the other two great foreign oil combines, and have the directors accordingly consulted his advisers, and what directions have they been given?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, I have to answer with care in these matters, because they might become the subject of litigation, but, speaking under all reserve, I have very little doubt that the marketing of oil is not a matter within the scope of interference legitimate to the Government representatives.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the marketing of oil mean an alliance for marketing purposes with these great foreign combines? Was not the original object of the Government holding to safeguard the Government's position with regard to the Navy's fuel supplies, and is not this much larger question quite outside management—surely the right hon. Gentleman has seen the categorical statement in the Press to-day—and what assurance can he give?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When did the Government last interview their directors on this Oil Company, and, further, have any instructions ever been given them with regard to joining forces with other companies for the purpose of price fixing?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The view of the Government—not only this, but preceding Governments—has been that the marketing of oil is not a matter in which we should interfere. Of course, if a situation arose where this country was being held to ransom in regard to its oil supplies, that would be a matter for Parliament, like every other situation, but it would be for Parliament to deal with it on general grounds and not, in my opinion, through its position as partner in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. It is, as I say, safeguarded by the
declarations which have been made in the past. But there is no such situation at present, and there is no such situation in view, according to any opinion that I can form.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do not the Government deem it part of their duty to control this matter of price fixing? Does it not mean that the British public fails to get the advantage it might get from reduced prices, and is not therefore the whole purpose of our having directors on the Board vitiated?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, the entry of the Government into the matter was dictated by the importance of securing a naval supply of oil, and that has been the governing principle throughout. A definite undertaking was given by the Government in 1914, that they would not interfere with the commercial management of the Company. That undertaking could not be departed from without infringing the rights of the non-official shareholders in the Company, and would have other reactions.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In view of the public uneasiness—

HON. MEMBERS: Where?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Among all the motorists.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In view of the public uneasiness at the situation that the Government is a majority shareholder in a company which is a price-fixing combine, will the right hon. Gentleman have the matter debated by Parliament with a view to having it settled?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not control the business of the House. There is opportunity of raising any matter that comes before Parliament, especially during the course of the Finance Bill. But I do not think there is the slightest ground for public uneasiness in anything that has occurred up to the present. The broad feature in recent years has been the marked fall in oil prices and the abundance of supplies. Whether that will be altered in the future I make no prediction at all. We must deal with new situations as they arise. Up to the present there is not the slightest ground for the suggestion that there is any reason for Government intervention.

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot spend all the afternoon on one question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment on Monday.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD BULLION AND SPECIE.

Sir J. POWER: 39.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the stock of gold bullion and specie in this country compares with the stock at the time of the restoration of the gold standard?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No data are available except of the gold in the Issue Department of the Bank of England, which has risen from £153,906,000 on the 29th April, 1925, to £169,146,000 on the 80th June, 1928.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE DAY (COMMEMORATION MEDALS).

Mr. DAY: 41.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the price paid to the Royal Mint for the medals which were struck at the Royal Mint to the order of the British Empire Union to commemorate Empire Day, 1928; what was the cost of making them; and what was the profit derived on this transaction?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: As I informed the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) on the 13th June, the prices quoted by the Royal Mint for these medals were fixed on the basis of a fair profit. For reasons which should be obvious to the hon. Member it is not customary to publish the details of individual transactions.

Mr. DAY: Can anybody or any organisation have medals struck?

Mr. SAMUEL: I think so, if they pay a proper price for them.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SUBSIDENCE (COMPENSATION).

Mr. MARDY JONES: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to introduce legislation during this Parliament to make provision for compensation to owners of property destroyed or damaged in consequence of subsidence of the surface due to mining operations?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I have been asked to reply. The Committee to which I referred in replying to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) on 3rd April has not yet completed its examination of the problems raised by the Report of the Royal Commission on Subsidence. I am therefore not in a position to make any statement in regard to legislation.

Mr. JONES: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a considerable number of owners of property in all parts of the coalfields are very dissatisfied with this long delay, that the Royal Commission sat for many years, that the Report has been published for some time, and that the country is justified in expecting the Government to legislate? Can I get a definite answer to my question as to whether it is proposed to legislate in this direction during the present Parliament?

Commodore KING: No, Sir; as I stated, I can make no statement with regard to legislation.

Mr. JONES: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman expedite the completion of the inquiry in time for legislation to be introduced in this Parliament?

Commodore KING: I hope that the inquiry will be completed in a month or so.

BENZOL.

Mr. LAWSON: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will institute an inquiry into the effect upon the coalmining industry of the recent agreement for the restriction of benzol between the benzol producers and certain oil companies?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I should be glad if the hon. Member would kindly inform me what agreement he has in mind.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the supply of benzol does not by any means meet the demand, and that there is an agreement for restriction in output?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On the contrary, I know of no agreement for restriction in respect to benzol, and, from inquiries that I have made, I cannot
find out anybody who does know. That is why I have asked the hon. Member to give me particulars.

Mr. LAWSON: May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has made inquiries?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly. I made inquiries as soon as the question was put down, and I cannot find verification in any quarter that there is any such agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES BILL.

Mr. ALBERY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister, approximately, when the Report stage of the Companies Bill is likely to be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I regret that I cannot anticipate the course of business beyond next week.

Mr. ALBERY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to take the main stages of this Bill during this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be making a statement about business in the course of the remarks I have to make on the Motion standing in my name.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether he intends to take the Report stage of the Bill before the Recess.

The PRIME MINISTER: I will make a statement about this in the course of my speech.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR INVENTION AWARD (INCOME TAX).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what allowance, if any, was made to Mr. Martin Hale on the legal expenses incurred by him in the prosecution of his claim for an award before the Royal Commission; whether Mr. Hale has made any declaration to the Treasury as to the amount of legal expenses thus incurred by him, and if the figure may be given to the House; and whether he will state the sum awarded to Mr. Hale by the
Commission and the figures deducted or claimed on account of Income Tax and Super-tax, respectively?

Mr. SAMUEL: No allowance of Income Tax has been, or could be, made in respect of the legal expenses to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The awards made to Mr. Hale by the Royal Commission amount to £22,000, and a sum of £4,400 has been deducted therefrom on account of Income Tax. Super-tax is charged, not on specific items of income, but by reference to the total income of the individual. Information on this point cannot, of course, be disclosed by the taxing authority. As regards the second part of the question, Mr. Hale has stated in a letter to the Press that he incurred costs on litigation, etc., amounting to £10,413 in establishing the validity of his patents in the Law Courts.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is my hon. Friend aware that Income Tax is taken off all the awards made by the Royal Commission automatically, and will he favourably consider a new Clause in the Finance Bill in order to get over that difficulty?

Mr. SAMUEL: The law is as I have stated, and we have to obey it. We are advised that the law does not allow expenses of this nature to be deducted for Income Tax purposes at all.

Colonel GRETTON: Will my hon. Friend say on what grounds that advice is given?

Mr. SAMUEL: On the grounds of the law of the land.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Department or this House interprets the law?

Mr. SAMUEL: We have to turn for advice to our legal advisers, and they have advised us that the law is as I have stated.

Mr. CAMPBELL: Is it not a fact that this gentleman, who has rendered great services to the country, is losing rather than getting any reward for all these services?

Mr. SAMUEL: That may be so; I cannot say. But we have to obey the law.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can my hon. Friend say what is the cost under this head?

Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot give that information without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider shortening the present qualifying period of residence under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924, of aged people of 70 who have returned to this country after living for a number of years in any Colony?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, which would, however, involve legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGGS (MASKING).

Major CARVER: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the Report of the Committee dealing with egg-marking is to be expected?

Captain BOWYER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Committee have presented their Report on this subject, and it is now in the hands of the printer. It will be published at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRSHIP "ITALIA" (ASSISTANCE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the possibility of sending British assistance to the rescue of the crews of the Italian airship "Italia" was considered; what are the reasons why one of His Majesty's aeroplane carriers was not available; and why no large flying boats could be sent to assist in the rescue operations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): Yes, Sir. The question of the possible co-operation of British service aircraft in the rescue of the crew of the "Italia" was very carefully considered by the Air Ministry in consultation with the Admiralty. It was reluctantly decided, having regard to the icebound condition of the sea in the neighbourhood, that there was no likelihood of effective aid being afforded at
this juncture by the Royal Air Force, either by means of aircraft based on a carrier or by flying boats. I may add that none the less I have placed myself in communication with the Italian authorities some time since and invited them if now, or at a later stage, there should appear to be anything which the Royal Air Force could usefully do to assist in the rescue operations to call upon us without hesitation.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that small nations like Sweden and Norway can assist in a work of humanity like this, and why we did not send an aircraft carrier to Spitzbergen with our admirable machines to help in finding the lost explorers?

Sir S. HOARE: I think that the hon. and gallant Member will at once see the difference between Scandinavian countries close to the scene of the disaster and this country, and there is also the fact that the northern countries have machines equipped for landing upon ice and operating in Polar circles, while we have not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could not our flying boats have reached Spitzbergen by way of Norway within a couple of days?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. I am afraid the flying boat could only land in the open waters, and the type of flying boats that we possess would not have been suitable for taking part in operations of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 55.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the recommendations passed at the Conference of Radio Experts at Washington last year on the matter of broadcasting, including the recommendation to prohibit the use of spark transmitters, have been considered by his Department; and, if so, what action it is proposed to take?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The International Radiotelegraph Regulations drawn up at the Washington Conference last year provide for a gradual reduction in the use of the spark system. Under these Regulations no new land
station may be established on the spark system, and the use of spark transmitters by land stations is to be discontinued entirely by the end of 1934. The Regulations permit the use of spark transmitters on ships, although after the end of 1929 no new spark transmitter may be installed of higher power than 300 watts, and after the end of 1939 no spark transmitter of higher power than 300 watts may be used on a ship. The new Regulations will be applied in this country, and a start has already been made in the work of converting British coast stations from the spark system to a different system.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE INSTALLATIONS, EAST YORKSHIRE.

Major CARVER: 66.
asked the Postmaster-General how many villages in East Yorkshire have, within the last 12 months, applied for the installation of a telephone; in how many such cases has a guarantee been requested, and, if so, of what amount; and whether there were any cases in which the guarantee was not forthcoming?

Viscount WOLMER: During the last 12 months seven villages in the East Riding have applied for the installation of a public telephone call office. In two of these places call offices have been authorised without guarantee; in two others, the terms have not yet been assessed. In the three remaining cases guarantees of £13 10s., £22 10s. and £51 10s. a year, respectively, have been quoted; one of these guarantees was not forthcoming and the other two are under consideration by the prospective guarantors.

Mr. HURD: Has any information come to the Noble Lord's Department that the amount required as guarantee is very often a deterrent in cases where a telephone installation is most desirable?

Viscount WOLMER: I am aware of that fact, but the question is, who is to bear the loss—whether it should be the general public or those who benefit?

Mr. HURD: Is not the total sum of the guarantee very often far beyond any loss that has been incurred?

Viscount WOLMER: We try to assess the guarantee upon the information at our disposal as to what the probable result of the use of the telephone will be. If the hon. Member has any cases in mind where he thinks the amount has been fixed too high, I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that, of the guarantees that are exacted from the users of the telephone, approximately only one-fifth of the amount guaranteed is called for, and does the Noble Lord not think that the Department might consider the advisability of reducing the amount of guarantee by one-half or one-third, in order to stimulate applications for telephone installations?

Viscount WOLMER: I will consider that suggestion and see what can be done.

DELIVERIES, CHISWICK.

Colonel MORDEN: 57.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the repeated delays in delivering the correspondence of a considerable business firm in Chiswick; and whether he can give assurances that the unnecessary delays referred to in correspondence 21,352/28 will no longer recur?

Viscount WOLMER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I much regret the delay referred to. All possible steps to prevent a recurrence will be taken.

Colonel MORDEN: Is the Noble Lord aware that for the last 10 years I have been trying to get an adequate postal service in Brentford and Chiswick and that the postal service for a district a few miles from this House practically compares with a service hundreds of miles away? That is why I have asked the Noble Lord whether it is impossible to get an adequate service?

Viscount WOLMER: I should be delighted to consider any suggestions from the hon. Member.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the Noble Lord aware that similar representations have come from myself in regard to business firms in Hackney and that he has received similar representations from other hon. Members?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes. Every one of these cases is considered on its merits.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "JERVIS BAY."

Captain GARRO-JONES: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will communicate to the House the result of his inquiries into the events on board and the wireless messages issued from the liner "Jervis Bay"?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will have printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT copies of the telegrams received from Colombo. They add nothing material to the information which has already appeared in the Press. The full depositions taken by the principal collector of Customs are being sent to this country by mail.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any administrative jurisdiction over an Australian ship, and, if so, is he going to hold an official Board of Trade inquiry into these events?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: This is a ship on the British register. Obviously, the jurisdiction in regard to holding an inquiry is limited to cases in which there has been a mutiny—that was not the case here—or where the loss of the ship is due to bad seamanship, which is not the case here. That, I think, is the position under the Merchant Shipping Act. The jurisdiction in this case is limited to certain specific happenings, and, obviously, it would be impossible to decide whether there was a prima facie case for an inquiry until the full depositions have been received.

Mr. HARRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen further statements in the Press that since the ship left Colombo there have been difficulties between the fireman and the captain, and can he say whether there is wireless communication between the ship and Colombo at the present time?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have had no information about any further trouble in the ship. There is wireless on the ship. Indeed, all the communications which have been received were by wireless.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend to take any steps to recover the cost of sending these vessels to the assistance of the "Jervis Bay"?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot answer such a question without notice, and certainly not without knowing all the facts as disclosed by the depositions.

Mr. SHINWELL: Has it not been definitely established that no member of the crew has been implicated in these alleged disturbances?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes. As regards what happened before the ship arrived at Colombo, I think there is no doubt at all about it. The first telegram that I received was as follows:
Your telegram 22nd June trouble on the 'Jervis Bay' confined to the stowaways. No signs of the disaffection crew.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Arising out of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that this ship is on the British Register, is it not a fact that she is on the way to this country to be handed over to British owners? Is she not on the Australian Register and on her way to be handed over?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am pretty sure that the ship is on the British Register. The position is that the ship has already passed on to the British Register, and the actual physical transfer of the ship to her new owners will take place after arrival in this country.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the statement give us any help in regard to the action of the British Press in linking the crew of this ship with the charges against the stowaways?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. The hon. Member will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow that the two telegrams which I have received from the Collector of Customs deal exclusively with the facts.

Miss WILKINSON: Will any inquiry be made as to the mental state of a captain who makes such a trouble about eight men on his ship when he has 600 passengers aboard as well as the crew?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It would be very much better if hon. Members would refrain from making reflections one way or the other until the full depositions are known.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does that apply to the London Press?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What I have said applies all round.

Following are the copies of the telegrams:

FIRST TELEGRAM.

Your telegram 22nd June trouble on the "Jervis Bay" confined to the stowaways no signs of the disaffection crew (fullstop) Boat left Fremantle 16th morning subsequently 8 stowaways discovered 4 English 2 Scotch one Irish one Cuban (fullstop) On the 18th they refused work were confined to quarters near the Isolation Hospital fullstop) Broke-out of quarters 18th night were handcuffed and placed in the cells fullstop) Several picked handcuffs broke open ceil doors (full stop) They were then confined Isolation Hospital and guarded by 4 Naval Ratings travelling as passengers also put on bread and water (fullstop) Morning of 20lh tried to fire quarters by setting mattresses alight and also to break out (fullstop) Similar attempts made 20th night fire put out on each occasion there-after stowaways under better control (full-stop) Naval Ratings with 10 ratings from R.F.A. "Slavol" boarded "Jervis Bay" 10 p.m. 23rd all quiet thereafter (full stop) Vessel arrived Colombo 8 a.m. 25th (full-stop) Proceedings against stowaways being taken locally will report result as soon as known (fullstop) Depositions following Mail (fullstop).

PRINCIPAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

SECOND TELEGRAM.

My previous telegram "Jervis Bay" the 8 stowaways charged in Colombo Police Court 25th June with being stowaways, disobedience of orders, continuing to disobey orders attempting to commit mischief by fire and thereby to destroy and render vessel unsafe and commit mischief by breaking handcuffs etc. (fullstop) Magistrates held that charges attempt to destroy ship by fire was weak in proving intent (fullstop) All prisoners convicted on remainder charges and sentenced 5 months and a half rigorous (fullstop) Copy of proceedings as reported in newspaper following with depositions today's mail (fullstop) "Jervis Bay" left Colombo homeward 10.30 p.m. 25th June.

PRINCIPAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

VICTORIA DOCK ROAD.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport whether an agreement has been reached by him with the London County Council and the West Ham Council for the construction of a new road from Canning Town to the riverside at North Woolwich; if so, what is the estimated cost; and what proportion is to be borne by the local authorities?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I presume my hon. Friend refers to the proposed Victoria Dock road, the construction, of which was included in the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Cross-River Traffic in London. The Government have undertaken to contribute 75 per cent. of the cost if the scheme is proceeded with, provided the remainder of the cost is shared on an equitable basis by local authorities in the London Traffic Area, and negotiations on this aspect of the question are proceeding. In the meantime, the two authorities mentioned by my hon. Friend have agreed to undertake preliminary work in connection with the scheme with a view to expediting the necessary legislation. The estimated cost of the scheme is something over £2,500,000.

Mr. HARRIS: Is there any time limit by which these roads have to be completed?

Colonel ASHLEY: These offers are not given for a definite date. If they do not materialise within a reasonable period, we make inquiries.

Mr. HARRIS: What is a reasonable period?

ROAD MAINTENANCE, WESTMINSTER.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is proposed to transfer the maintenance of Parliament Square, St. Margaret's Street, Old Palace Yard, and Abingdon Street to the Westminster City Council; and whether legislation will be introduced for that purpose?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (EXAMINATIONS AND SCOTTISH CANDIDATES).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 67.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the examinations for entrants to the department for writers and supply assistants in the Navy are held only at Chatham; that these examinations at Chatham involve Scottish candidates in heavy travelling and other expenses; and whether, following the precedents set by the Customs and Excise, Post Office and other Departments, he will arrange to
have an examination centre arranged for in Scotland?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Examinations for the entry of writers and supply assistants are held at Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. All candidates for entry, however, are fully informed of the conditions under which the examination is held. I am making inquiries to ascertain whether it is possible to overcome the difficulties of arranging for adequate supervision, and provide for examination of Scottish candidates at some Scottish centre.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that other Departments of State have overcome this difficulty?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir; and I may say that I was inquiring into this particular point before the hon. Member put down this question on the Order Paper. I will do my best to make it possible to save Scottish candidates this expense.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES).

Major-General Sir RCHARD LUCE: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions to consider the possibility of extending benefit under the Pensions Act to the orphan children of pensioners who are mentally or physically deficient after they reach the age of 21?

Major TRYON: I have no authority under the Royal Warrants to continue allowances, which normally cease at the age of 16, beyond the age of 21. I have however taken, and am taking, measures within my powers, and without encroaching on the obligations of local education and health authorities in the matter, to co-operate with other agencies in securing such suitable treatment or training of the children before they reach the age of 21 as will enable them as far as possible to contribute to their own support.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (METAL GRINDING INDUSTRIES).

Mr. WILLIAM HIRST: 17.
asked the Home Secretary the total number of
claims at the latest available date under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in connection with the silicosis scheme by July, 1927; and the number as affecting Birmingham and Sheffield, respectively?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I presume the hon. Member refers to the scheme for the metal grinding industries which came into operation on the 1st July last year. I regret that I am unable at present to give any figures, but information as to the number of cases in which compensation was paid under this scheme during the six months, July to December, 1927, is being collected and will be available later.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-POX (CASUALS).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 29.
asked the Minister of Health when the order for the medical inspection of casuals expires and whether it is his intention to extend it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am extending the present direction on this subject, which expires at the end of this month, to the end of September next.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 30.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of small-pox reported for England and Wales for the latest week available; and the number of cases discovered among casuals during any convenient period?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The provisional number of notifications of cases of smallpox in England and Wales for the week ended 23rd June last was 230. I have no precise information as regards the latter part of the question, but during the period 24th January to 25th June, 1928, 124 cases of small-pox have been reported among casuals.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Would not many of these cases among casuals in workhouses be obviated if a medical inspection took place on their arrival, rather than after they had been in the casual ward for over 12 hours?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It may be impossible to examine them all at the moment they arrive at the workhouse, but I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ACCIDENT, DARLINGTON.

Mr. SHEPHERD (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Transport whether
he can give the House any information as to the lamentable railway accident at Darlington yesterday?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no detailed information more than what I have seen in the public Press, but I may say that I have appointed Sir John Pringle, Chief Inspector of Railways, to hold an inquiry.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can state the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the event of the Motion allocating time for the remaining stages of the Hating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill being passed by the House to-day, the business next week will be:
Monday, First Allotted Day in Committee on the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill;
Tuesday, completion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, and other Orders on the Paper;
Wednesday and Thursday, second and third Allotted Days in Committee on the Bating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill; and,

Friday, Private Members' Bills will be considered.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. SNOWDEN: With reference to the business for to-day, can the Prime Minister say how far it is proposed to go with the Bills on the Order Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that question, as I have no control over the time which these Bills may take.

Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: There are certain Orders on the Paper which are interesting to all hon. Members, and have been on the Order Paper for some weeks past. There is the Naval Prize (Transfer of Fund) Bill. Surely we can be told which Orders are going to be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: That. Order will not be taken in any case, but I am going to make a statement later in the proceeding to-day on the Bills which we hope to take.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 116.

Division No. 217.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Buchan, John
Ellis, R. G.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Buckingham, Sir H.
England, Colonel A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burman, J. B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston S. M.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cudogan, Major Hon. Edward
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Astor, Viscountess
Campbell, E. T.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Carver, Major W. H.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fielden, E. B.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Finburgh, S.


Bennett, A. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Forrest, W.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Berry, Sir George
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bethel, A.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. I.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major Sir William
Frece, Sir Walter de


Boothby, R. J. G.
Couper, J. B.
Gates, Percy


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gower, Sir Robert


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbo)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Briggs, J. Harold
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hanbury, C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Drewe, C.
Harland, A.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harrison, G. J. C.


Hartington, Marquess of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Malone, Major P. S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Margesson, Captain D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Holt, Captain H. P.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Storry-Deans, R.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrs'ld.)
Tinne, J. A.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Oakley, T.
Tichfield, Major the Marquess of


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jephcott, A. R.
Penny, Frederick George
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waddington, R.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Perring, Sir William George
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Knox, Sir Alfred
Power, Sir John Cecil
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lamb, J. O.
Preston, William
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Radford, E. A.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Raine, Sir Walter
Wells, S. R.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Loder, J. de V.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Looker, Herbert William
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lougher, Lewis
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Salmon, Major I.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Lumley, L. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wragg, Herbert


MacIntyre, Ian
Savery, S. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


McLean, Major A.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)



Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Skelton, A. N.
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Captain Viscount Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Stall., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Ammon, Charles George
Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Pureed, A. A.


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Briant, Frank
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Scurr, John


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bromley, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stamford, T. W.


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, Campbell


Cove, W. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Strauss, E. A.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Sullivan, J.


Dalton, Hugh
Livingstone, A. M.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Day, Harry
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
MacLaren, Andrew
Varley, Frank B.


Gibbins, Joseph
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Vlant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Whiteley, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Williams, T. (York Don Valley)
Wright, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.


Windsor, Walter

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).

Mr. Hopkins reported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That the Committee could not proceed to business in consequence of the unavoidable absence of two Members of the Committee, and had, therefore, adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the Clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.

Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords],

South Essex Waterworks Bill [Lords],

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Richmond Parish Charity Lands Scheme Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Windermere Gas and Water Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to equalise the position under the Government of India Act of barristers, advocates, and pleaders as respects qualification for appointment as judges of high courts, and as respects the proportion of such judges required to possess special qualifications, and to render any person qualified under the said Act to be appointed a judge of a high court eligible for appointment as chief justice of such a court." [Indian High Courts Bill [Lords.]

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL.

Reported from the Joint Committee on Railway (Road Transport) Bills [Preamble nut proved.]

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Rubber Industry Bill); Lord Huntingfield; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Herbert Cunliffe.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) BILL. (ALLOCATION OF TIME.)

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
"That the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Heading of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:
(1) Committee Stage.
Three allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table.


TABLE I.—(Committee Stage.)


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.




P.M.


First
Clause 2
7.30


Clauses 3 and 4
—


Second
Clauses 3 and 4
7.30


Clauses 5 to 8
—


Third
Clauses 5 to 8
7.30


Clauses 9 and 10, New Clauses, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion
10.30

(2) Report Stage and Third Reading.

Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage and Third Reading, and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.


TABLE II.—(Report Stage and Third Reading.)


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.




P.M.


First
New Clauses and Clauses 1 and 2
7.30


Clauses 3 and 4
10.30


Second
Rest of Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion
7.30


Third Reading
11.0

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After this Order comes into operation, any day other than a Friday after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the day, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules; and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, for Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those
727
proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."

I will first give the reasons which impelled me to put down this Motion, and I propose to fortify them by some examples of the use made of similar Motions on other occasions. The House will remember that when we first met in February, I told it that it was the intention of the Government to prorogue either at the end of July or at the beginning of August, and that a new Session would begin in the autumn. I believed that that would be of most general convenience to the House, partly because I think the House will be ready for some rest from its labours after six months; and, secondly, there is a desire, not confined to one party more than to another, to spend as much as possible of the Parliamentary holiday with their own families at the customary holiday time. Without passing this Motion to-day, it is quite clear that it would be impossible to prorogue at an early date in August. Besides this Bill, there is still a certain amount of business outstanding which must be secured before we separate, and it might be for the convenience of the House if I stated what we still have before us.

Taking the chief items of the outstanding business, we have still to get through seven allotted Supply days;

All stages of the Appropriation Bill;

The remaining stages of the Agricultural Credits Bill:

The Companies Bill;

The Finance Bill; and

The Re-organisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill.

There are a few minor Measures to which I shall allude in a moment, and there are routine Bills not yet introduced, such as the Isle of Man (Customs), the Public Works Loans and the Telegraph (Money).

There are certain contingencies of which I have not been made aware, for which time may be demanded by the
Chairman of Ways and Means for the contentious Private Bills, and, of course, any Lords Amendments to Bills that may come down to us from another place.

Then of Bills not of the first importance, but which we hope to secure, there are a certain number still waiting either their Second Reading altogether, or their Second Reading partially, to be considered. There are the

Administration of Justice Bill;

The Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill;

The False Oaths (Scotland) Bill;

The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill;

The Police Districts (Scotland) Bill;

The Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Bill;

The Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters (Agreement) Bill; and

The Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Bill.

Then, awaiting Report and Third Reading, there are the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Bill, and an old and intimate friend of all of us, the Rabbits Bill.

Then the Money Resolution, Committee and Report have to be taken on the Administration of Justice Bill and the Naval Prize Bill.

I think now it is agreed that we shall not need a Financial Resolution for the Administration of Justice Bill, of which we propose to drop the very controversial portion in the hope that we may be able to get the rest of it, which is rather important. Then there is the Report stage of the Money Resolution on Mr. Speaker's Retirement Bill, the Lords Amendments to the Petroleum Bill, and, as I said, any other Bills to which they may think fit to make Amendments, and we are expecting to have from another place the Indian High Courts Bill and the Food and Drugs Adulteration (Consolidation) Bill. With regard to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, the Committee has considered and dealt with Clause 1. That took nearly two whole sitting days, and there are remaining nine Clauses and two Schedules, and there are a number of Amendments put down. It is quite evident, therefore, that without some form of restriction, the Debates might well
last such a time as would take us certainly in to the middle of August, and, it might be, later. Therefore, the time table that we have put down provides for three further sittings in Committee, a day and a half on Report, and half a day or Third Reading, and taking into account the time already occupied on Second Reading and in Committee for this Bill, there will have been given no less than nine full sittings for all stages of the Bill.

I have always noticed—and I have had some experience of these Motions—that they are Motions as to which the House always expresses a certain reluctance before accepting, and it is always extremely pleased when the Motion has gone through, because two consequences result. One is that, knowing the time is limited, the House in its wisdom settles down to such Amendments as are of importance, and the Debates, in consequence, generally are much improved; and, secondly, the House gets to bed in reasonable time, having learnt by experience that it has a brighter intellect and clearer tongue at six o'clock in the evening than at six o'clock in the morning.

I have only one or two more observations to make, and I say these as one who has sat in the House, not as long as many who are here, but, still, during the greater time of the great Liberal administration before the War. This engine, if it might be so called, was perfected and utilised during that time in a way that it had not been used before or has been used since, and I think it was a favourite child of that great Parliamentarian Mr. Asquith, because he said on one occasion:
Legislation on a large scale in regard to grave and complicated questions is impossible unless you resort to some sort of time-table and some allocation of time.
He went on to say:
I repudiate in the strongest possible terms and with the utmost depths of conviction that in the proposition I now lay be-fore the House we are endeavouring in any way to curtail the fullest and freest liberty of discussion and of criticism of this Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1911; col. 121, Vol. 30.]
He also said on a later occasion—and I must trouble the House with one more quotation, because I think it is so admirably
expressed, and he was a man of meticulous care in the use of words—
I have said over and over again, in the years when I was responsible for the conduct of the business of the House, that we should not be able to carry on the complicated Parliamentary machine unless we adopted in some form or other the timetable system.… I am strongly of opinion that the Closure and Guillotine are necessary instruments of Parliamentary procedure if this House is to be a really efficient legislative body."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1921; col. 472, Vol. 144.]
The Leader of the Labour party in 1921 (Mr. Cynes) thought these Motions might be
justifiable in order to secure the passing of a very important Measure which the country was demanding.

The two reasons which make me think that the country approves of this Measure are (1) the very little criticism which has come so far from the country; and (2) that, although both parties as parties speak very loudly against our proposals in this House, at the same time individual Members of both parties come to the Chancellor frequently, begging that our proposals might be introduced at a much earlier, date.

I have kept my best to the last. I am sure the House will welcome back the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) after his holiday in the country. We are the more pleased to see him because we thought hat he would have reserved his entry undil he came bringing his sheaves with him. The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of that great Liberal Government which, during the whole time from 1906 to 1914, averaged three of these Motions a year. If this Motion goes through, this Government will have averaged 75 per year. The Coalition Government from 1918 to 1922 used it five times in four years. That is 1.25 Motions a year. The right hon. Gentleman has frequently expressed—it may be very often tacitly in those days—his appreciation of this method; he is, as one would expect from a man of his mental and physical agility, a kangaroo. He said:
I trust that this House will never go back upon the principle of the kangaroo.
He made this observation, which I commend to his followers, in July, 1921, either during or immediately after the passage of a much debated Bill which I had the honour of piloting through the House on
his behalf—the Safeguarding of Industries Bill. This is what he said:
The thing that will destroy Parliament is eternal repetition of the same arguments, the same propositions, the same reasons, and the same objections."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1921; col. 510, Vol. 144.]
He used those words in 1921, and, believe me, they are as true to-day as they were then. I think I have given sufficient reasons for this Motion to-day.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I beg to move to leave out from the word "that," in line 1, to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to assent to any limitation of debate, other than that provided by Standing Orders, in respect of a Bill which deals with difficult questions affecting the assessment of property prior to the granting of relief from rates and is calculated to lead to many anomalies and injustices unless properly examined and discussed with a view to amendment.
I must apologise for the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, who had hoped to move this Amendment. With a good deal that the Prime Minister has said, I generally agree. I am not opposed to the use of the guillotine, and I am not sure that I cannot re-echo the words used by the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but the arguments used by the Prime Minister were general arguments in defence of the guillotine and the kangaroo. That is not, however, the question now before the House. The question is not whether the House approves of the use of the guillotine, but whether the Government are entitled to use it on this particular occasion. On that, the Prime Minister said very little. His speech was one which I remember having heard before when a guillotine Motion was before the House. The guillotine is a perfectly proper method to protect the Government against frivolous obstruction, and I think that my recollection is right when I say that the use of this expedient by the Liberal Government before the War was due to the frivolous obstruction and opposition of the Conservative party. There must be some drastic method of opposing frivolous obstruction. But nobody can argue that on the proceedings on this Bill until now one single word of obstruction has been uttered.
It is not that the progress on this Bill has been too slow. Its progress so far has been too rapid, having regard to the implications involved in the Measure. Therefore, the cry of frivolous obstruction and meaningless repetition does not apply to the Measure chat is now before us.
Secondly an appeal is made to Members under threat of the loss of their holidays. I can understand a Government, acting under the pressure of time, desiring to get an important Measure on the Statute Book before the end of the Session, but there is no such pressure of time as regards this particular Measure. It may be true that there are so many days still to be devoted to Supply, so many Bills to come before the House for final consideration, but that is no argument why there should on this particular Bill be such a hurry that it must be forced through by the end of July. Indeed, it would have been much more convenient to Members of the House and to the public if the Measure which we are now discussing, and the Measure which is to be presented in the new Session dealing with local government, had both been before the House at the same time. That has been one of our difficulties, and it would have facilitated discussion had the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health introduced this Bill with the complementary Measure in the autumn. I could understand the guillotine Motion being used if the Bill were a relatively unimportant Bill, but it happens that it is by way of being revolutionary, and it therefore requires a great deal more detailed examination than it is likely to receive.
The Prime Minister tells us that with the time we have already had on this Bill, and the time he is graciously going to permit us to have in the future, we shall have had nine days for all stages of the Bill. To use that as an argument in favour of the guillotine, is to pay very little attention to the desires of the House for reasonable and decent legislation. Nine days for a Bill of this magnitude is utterly inadequate. There are questions arising out of this Bill which, without any desire to obstruct, would require much more time for their proper consideration. I will not say a word about the merits of the Bill, but the extension of the principle of de-rating
agricultural land, which was devised to meet very special circumstances, to a very large number of classes of hereditaments is so far-reaching in its importance, that it merits a great deal of consideration.
On Clauses 3 and 4 we are to have a Committee stage of no more than from six to seven hours. With the best will in the world, with the strongest desire to cut out every unnecessary word, and to facilitate the passage of the Bill through the House, six hours on the question of industrial hereditaments is a grotesquely small amount of time, and it is quite impossible to deal with all the issues that arise under those Clauses in the time allotted. Similarly, Clauses 5 to 8, of which Clause 5 is the most important, are to be given six or seven hours' consideration in Committee. Clause 5 raises very large questions which are perturbing the minds not merely of the dock authorities in the country, but even of the railway companies, who were so highly satisfied with the Measure at first glance; and to suppose that these interests can have their points settled, and that Clause 5 can be dealt with in a matter of six or seven hours, is absurd, to use no stronger word. When we come to consider what the Bill is bound to mean in the way of difficulties, anomalies, and injustices, it is quite clear that it is the kind of Measure which really merits very detailed treatment in the House. In the next place, this is not a Bill which has the unanimous approval even of members of the Government. A number of very important questions of substance are raised in Amendments in the names of Members of the Conservative party, Members who certainly are not animated by any desire to impede or embarrass the Government, and they are Amendments which have been put down because very substantial difficulties have arisen. Therefore, this is not the kind of Bill that has the unanimous support of that side of the House. Nor is it a Bill so simple that it can easily be disposed of.
In the use of the guillotine and its general desire to suppress the expression of opinion in this House, the Government become more and more audacious. The Prime Minister's statement that some earlier Liberal Government resorted to the guillotine three times per year, and that this Government have resorted to it
only 75 per year, means nothing to those who are smarting under the injustice of having their rightful demands for criticism curtailed. Consider the history of this Bill. The Government were permitted by this House to proceed with a Measure which is merely part of a general scheme. It was a very difficult proposition to make to the House to say that we should have two Bills, but that the second Bill would be withheld from the House; we are asked to consider the first Bill in vacuo without relation to the Bill that is coming subsequently. That is imposing an unfair strain upon the House, and the result is that a great deal of time has already been spent in the discussions on Second Reading and in Committee on matters of confusion arising cut of the fact that the major proposal; of the scheme are withheld from us, and we cannot argue them. We have been told to wait and see, and that it would come out all right in the autumn. We have been told that our points of criticism will be met when the further Bill is before us, and all that we had to swallow. The Government's second step in audacity was to keep this Bill on the Floor of the House for the Committee stage. If ever there were a Bill which required the very close attention of a Standing Committee, point by point, it is this Bill. Clauses 3 and 5 especially are of a particularly detailed character, and can only be adequately discussed in a smaller body than the Committee of the Whole House. The Government decided to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, and, by doing so, they were enabled to make use of a procedure which severely limits discussion on the Bill.
Their final act of audacity, having withheld from us their proposals, having, by keeping; he Bill on the Floor of the House, restricted our opportunity for examination and criticism, is to come forward and entirely stifle discussion on certain important points. What it means is that, not merely on certain important questions in the Bill, is there to be curtailed discussion, but under the operation of the guillotine, it is inevitable that there will be a number of important points of substance on which not a single word will be uttered before the Bill goes through. That is a most unfair way of treating the House.
I have tried to make the most of the right hon. Gentleman's argument about time; I have tried to appreciate his point of view about the use of the guillotine, but the real reason for this method of dealing with this very important Bill is perfectly clear. The Government are afraid to face a detailed examination of the Measure. They are afraid that examination and criticism will reveal all its absurdities and its injustices. They are very uneasy that the revelations which are bound to come from a full discussion will convert some of their political friends into political opponents. Therefore, from the Government's point of view, the less said about this Bill the better. The Bill is not as we have been led to believe, a carefully considered Measure, and the result of a long period of incubation, it is panic legislation. It is an impulsive Measure which derived its first impetus from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose lack of political judgment is well known. A Bill with an origin like that, an illogical and impulsive Measure, a hastily-conceived Measure, which is part of a plan which still remains unknown to the House, needs very prolonged consideration if it is not to be a discredit to Parliament. But, of course, the Prime Minister and his colleagues are less concerned about discredit to Parliament than discredit to themselves, and the chief way of avoiding discredit to themselves, as they see it, is to stifle discussion of the Bill. If they had welcomed the full co-operation of the House in making the Bill a workmanlike Measure, faulty though it be, that would have been one fair method of admitting its imperfections and one fair method of putting those imperfections right, but instead of taking the House into their confidence they have preferred to fall back upon coercion and suppression in order to hide the shortcomings of the two Ministers who are primarily responsible, and to hide also the defects of the Bill.
I do not want to use very strong words, being a moderate-minded person, but this Motion does merit the strongest possible condemnation. We have not had the real reason why the Government are funking discussion on this Bill. It is on one hand because of its defects, but it is also because, if they do not get it
through rapidly, they will never get it through at all, and because the body of criticism has increased. No doubt the Prime Minister is occupied with many other duties, and he does not appear to be aware that there is objection in the country to this Bill. Let me inform him he is entirely mistaken. Some of the earlier friends of the Measure are now questioning some of its provisions. Certain large interests have taken the Bill into their consideration and are most anxious for substantial amendments to be made. The House of Commons ought to consider that strong body of opinion outside, but the Government are more concerned to get the Bill through rapidly before the worst is known about it.
This Motion is the last refuge of an incompetent and muddled Government who have rushed into these proposals without proper consideration, and they are using this dodge, because it is only a dodge, to escape justifiable criticism and to evade or avoid complete exposure of their intellectual bankruptcy. That is the motive behind this Motion, and although I am afraid no words of mine will convince hon. Members opposite I still think there is justification on pure House of Commons grounds for our objection to the Motion. This Amendment is a protest against the suggestion that we should legislate in this way. There is no reason why the House of Commons should be as hasty and as impulsive as some Members of the Government, and in defence of the rights of the House of Commons and the full discussion of the principles of this Measure, I beg to move my Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It would be idle for me to say that I have an objection to a Motion of this character. I have taken part in supporting such Motions and have defended them, and, apart altogether from precedent, I have been of the opinion for a very long time that it is impossible to get a highly contentious Measure through Parliament in anything like reasonable time without some procedure of this character. It is not merely a question of obstruction. I do not think the argument about obstruction is the conclusive one. You could have perfectly legitimate debates upon legitimate Amendments which would
take up so much time that they would paralyse the whole activity and deliberations of Parliament unless there were some means of curtailing the discussions. Therefore, in principle, I certainly am not opposed to a guillotine Motion. I tried to get a big Bill through this House without the guillotine. It was the Budget of 1909. The result was that we went on from April to December. We sometimes had to sit till 6 o'clock in the morning, and even till 9 o'clock; and I thought at the time, and I am even more convinced of it now, that nothing was gained through the manner in which that Bill was amended—it did not improve it. The Government of the day were forced to accept Amendments to it not as a result of being convinced by appeals to reason but in order to facilitate the progress of the Bill. I do not think that is desirable in itself, and I am more than ever convinced that it is impossible and impracticable to carry through the House of Commons any great contentious Measure without some motion of this kind.
My appeal to the Government would be of a different character. But before I come to the specific appeal which I propose to make, I would make a general suggestion—I am not sure that I have not made it before—that in the future it would be desirable before the Government pat down a Motion of this kind that they should take into consultation the Opposition parties. I am speaking now merely as an old House of Commons man. No doubt the Opposition would press for more time than the Government could concede, but at any rate it is just conceivable that an arrangement could be made which would be suitable both to the Government and to the Opposition, because an Opposition party may want to concentrate more upon some particular Clauses. As long as they get their Bill in the time, the Government might allow the Opposition to indicate what they would prefer to discuss. I am throwing out this as a suggestion to right hon. Gentlemen who may at some future date be responsible for the direction of the affairs of this House, and I hope they will bear that in mind as a suggestion coming from one who has had a pretty long experience of the carrying through of Parliamentary business.
One general criticism I should make would be this, and it is a confirmation of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood). The Prime Minister stated that nine days in all will be given to the discussion of this Measure. I do not quite know how he makes up his nine days, but I take the figure from him; but four of those days have been spent in debate at a time when we really were not in possession of the scheme of the Government. We shall have three Bills, the Finance Bill, this Bill and the third Bill, and I do not know when it will be strictly in order to discuss the whole of the scheme, whether it will be on the Budget, upon this Bill or upon the third. That is one of the difficulties of carrying through one great, comprehensive scheme by three different Measures which do not seem to be quite complete from the Parliamentary point of view. What is our position? This is a Bill for the purpose of determining the allocation of the fund placed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the disposal of the Ministry of Health—not in form, but in substance. This Measure will more or less determine the character of the beneficiaries, who the beneficiaries shall be, and what the exceptions shall be. We have discussed that subject for four days without knowing what the Government scheme was. I have been working out the meaning of sentences used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—quite sincerely, I can assure him—to try to find out what he really had in his mind. Nobody charges him with any lack of lucidity and I do not think he has been deliberately darkening counsel—I am sure he has not. On the other hand, the Minister of Health has been using certain phrases with regard to the particular method of allocating the money. Nobody would charge-him with lack of lucidity, but, all the same, I do not believe there is anybody in this House who quite knows what the Government's scheme is with regard to, say, the necessitous areas. I am told that to-morrow we are to have the scheme. I was not here at Question Time when an answer was given, but I understand the White Paper is to be circulated to-morrow.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain) indicated assent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: To-morrow, for the first time, we shall know what the scheme is, but for four days we have been discussing it on the basis of phrases used by the two Ministers. After tomorrow we shall begin to discuss this Bill on the basis of a document which shows what the allocations will be. But from the point of view of informative criticism, four days have been thrown away. I think there is great force in the contention of the hon. Member that the Government ought to take that into account. The Prime Minister said there was no criticism in the country. He is really quite wrong in that. It is no use arguing about that. When Ministers address a crowd of people who have come there to applaud and support them, naturally they do not hear criticisms, but there is a good deal of criticism in the country. That criticism is growing and it will become more and more formidable. The Minister of Health smiles. I wonder whether that smile will be as broad after his interviews with the local authorities. I think it is a smile that will wear away as the result of those interviews. I am not going to refer to any other indications of public opinion, because I am awaiting the results myself. I have been congratulated upon having had a holiday because I have been in the country. Heaven forfend that I should have many holidays of that sort-seven meetings in two days is hardly what I call a holiday.
The Prime Minister is making a mistake in imagining that there is not criticism, and very formidable criticism in the country of these schemes. That may be a matter of argument now, but when discussion in the country develops it will be quite clear whether Ministers are right or whether we are right. Though we are now in the region of conjecture, the time will come when we shall both be equally certain, whichever way it goes. Take those Clauses that are coming on now. Does the Minister of Health really think that he has given us adequate time to discuss them, even assuming that the principle of the Guillotine is accepted? Take the purely business discussion of these Clauses. There is hardly enough time to discuss the Amendments which have been put down by Members on the Government side, and certainly those are not wrecking
Amendments. Take one very important Clause, Clause 2, which has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson, the agricultural Clause; or take Clause 3, which lays down the whole basis of the distribution. The Minister of Health, there, is practically recasting our rating system. That is a gigantic piece of work. One is bound to argue at the present moment from the point of view that the principle is a sound one, but, even assuming that the principle is a sound one, it requires very careful definition, and, unless two or three very important matters are discussed on each of these Clauses, the Minister of Health will find that it will result in endless litigation, and that there will be decisions given by the Courts which do not carry out the intentions of this House or of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
I am not going to dwell upon this point longer, because I understand that there is an Amendment, which I believe is in order, and which will make a special appeal for a couple of days. If that is the ease, I shall not dwell any longer upon this particular aspect of the matter, except to point out, generally, that I think the Minister of Health would be acting very much more wisely by giving us a little more time to discuss these very important practical issues. If the Opposition, instead of discussing the practical Amendments, take up time in discussing the general question of principle, that will be their fault entirely and their responsibility, but, at any rate, the Government will have afforded an opportunity for a more extended discussion of what I call the purely business Amendments; and I would honestly urge him to give more time to the discussion of Clauses 3 and 4.
I understand that there is a very important issue with regard to London, and another as to Scotland. I am not sufficiently well informed to be able to say anything upon those two particular issues; I am discussing now only the question of Clause 3 and Clause 4, upon which, if the Minister of Health will just glance at the Amendments, he will find that there are quite a number of what I call purely business and technical Amendments, the passing of which would have a considerable effect upon the working
of this scheme, and upon which, I think, we ought to have discussion in this House, and ultimately a decision. Those Amendments do not affect the general principle of the Bill, and do not affect the finance, except perhaps to a very small extent. They might, perhaps, add slightly to the financial requirements, but they can add nothing which will in the slightest degree wreck the financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the discussion of those Amendments will give us an opportunity to urge upon the Minister of Health certain improvements which would make the scheme a more workable scheme and certainly a fairer scheme. Therefore, I would support the Amendment if it is in order, as I understand it is, for an extension of time with regard to those matters.

Mr. TINKER: I have been an interested listener to everything that has been said in support of the Motion by the Prime Minister, but I expected more cogent reasons to be given for that proposition than have been given. There are only two points put forward in favour of the Prime Minister's Motion. One is that there is not sufficient force of opinion in the country against this Bill to justify us in spending a great amount of time over it; and the second is that all the Members of this House are desirous of getting away for their holidays in August.
Take the first point. I do not want us to arrive at a time when we shall act only according to the representations which reach us from constituents, and shall only devote adequate time to Measures which attract a lot of attention on the part of constituents. I do not want the time to arrive when Parliament will be negligent in its work because it happens to be on a subject of which the country do not know anything at all. On the second point, with regard to the summer holiday, we on these benches are only human, like everybody else, and when the time comes for the holidays we shall welcome it. So far, the Prime Minister has not attempted to prove, what I thought he would have tried to prove, that there has been obstruction to the passage of this particular Bill. I have sat here most of the time while the Bill has been under discussion, and in my opinion no one can say that on
the whole the discussion has not been well thought out. I contend that there has been no attempt at all to obstruct the passage of the Bill. If there had been, then I should agree that Parliament must take up the attitude that something must be done to put a stop to it, but the Prime Minister did not urge that at all. If he had done so, and had proved his case, then we would have readily agreed.
With regard to the second point, the question of Parliamentary time, let us assume that it will take another week to get this Measure through without the guillotine. Are we restricted as to time? If we take another week in August, will anybody complain? Surely, on an important Measure like this, the work which we have to do ought to come first, and we ought not to be thinking about how long our holiday shall be. I can say quite candidly that we on these benches are quite prepared to go on working as long as it is necessary to do so. Our first job is here; we are paid a certain amount of money to come here and see that the work is done. On this important Measure, which to my mind is one of the greatest Measures that could be considered by Parliament, if we think that time is required at least the Government ought not to stand in the way. It does occur to us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson (Mr. A. Greenwood) pointed out, that the Government are afraid of a careful examination of this Measure. I should have expected the Members of the Government, especially the Minister of Health and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who have laid themselves open to all kinds of criticism, to have been prepared to meet it at all points. But evidently there is something which they do not want brought forward; hence their curtailment of the Debate.
I am very sorry indeed that the Government have taken the attitude which they have done upon this matter, and I should have hoped that the Prime Minister would have put up a much better case in asking Parliament to make use of the great weapon of closuring the Debate; because it means closuring the Debate. We shall arrive at a stage in the end, it, may be, when many things remain which should be dealt with fully, but the guillotine will fall, and all discussion will be at an end. I do not know
whether we shall have sufficient force on our side to enable us to defeat the Government; probably we will not, but Members of the Government must realise that, when we go to the country to tell them the position of affairs on this important Bill, they will want to know why the Members of the Government have not given ample time for the discussion of its provisions. For those reasons, I shall go into the Lobby against the passing of this proposition of the Prime Minister.

Mr. MacLAREN: I quite agree, speaking as a long suffering Member on the back benches, that, if there is a profuse and tropical growth of speeches, you must make use of some such machinery as is suggested if the House is to cut them down, but there are certain Measures with regard to which it is true to say that it may be almost a danger to the Constitution for the Government of the day to use that weapon under the pretext of pressure of time; and this Bill, being part of a larger scheme which, when carried through, will in my opinion be more momentous than any Parliamentary scheme which has been carried through in the history of our Constitution, is, I submit, one of those Measures. The difficulty of discussing the Bill at all is obscured by the subsequent Bill which it is proposed to bring in later on in the year. I am not putting forward this argument as a sort of blocking speech, nor am I wasting time; I am putting it in all genuine seriousness. I think that more time ought to be devoted to the discussion of this Bill, and also of the third Bill which is to be brought in, than should be devoted to any other Bill which the Government may have in view.
The Prime Minister advanced very weak excuses for his proposal. He contended that there has not been a great deal of criticism of this Bill in the country. I submit that that is no argument at all. There was one Bill called the Law of Property Bill, which I dare say evoked no criticism from the ordinary people of the country, but which was a highly complicated and highly involved Measure. I well remember the famous Budget introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). At first, it seemed that the scheme underlying that Budget evoked popular applause, but the
longer it was discussed and the more it was inquired into and analysed, the more violent became the reaction in the country; and we all know what was the subsequent history of that Act. This Bill is almost akin to the Measure referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, because this also deals with rating. These questions of rates and taxes, being somewhat technical, always appear to the man in the street to be questions of a very dry and uninteresting nature, and do not cause him excitement nor call for applause or condemnation. Therefore, it is no sound argument for the Prime Minister to submit to this House that, the Bill having so far provoked no great criticism from the ordinary people of the country, he feels safe in expediting its passage.
There is another point which the Prime Minister submitted, namely, that private Members are asking that this Bill may be pressed on as quickly as possible. It would be extremely interesting to find out who those private Members are. If they are private Members on the other side of the House, one can understand it, but, if they are private Members on this side of the House, I rather suspect that they are below the Gangway, because I could not entertain the idea that any Member of the Labour party has petitioned the Prime Minister to expedite the passage of such a Bill as this.
Coming to the Bill itself, and the reason why there is necessity for full and ample discussion, it has been suggested that certain Clauses of this Bill might be passed by the operation of the guillotine without much being lost; but I submit to the Minister of Health that there is great ambiguity with regard to the definition of agricultural hereditaments; and, again, when we come to railway valuation, the position is extremely obscure. I do not know how far the Government have made up their mind to recast these Clauses; but, when one comes to review the machinery of railway valuation, when one knows the condition in which that department of valuation has been for years, when one bears in mind that the incidence of valuation and the forms of valuation with regard to ordinary hereditaments are entirely different from those relating to railway hereditaments, then one finds it extremely difficult to understand how in this Bill
there can have been inserted Clauses similar to those affecting the valuation of ordinary hereditaments. I do not know how far the Government have made up their mind to insert altogether new Clauses, but, if those Clauses stand, then in view of the intricacy and difficulty of railway valuation—and no settled policy so far as I know has been arrived at for properly valuing railways—I do not think the Minister can say, apart altogether from party politics, that it will be fair to use the guillotine upon those Clauses, or at least to deny to the House the opportunity of full and ample discussion.
5.0 p.m.
I believe, and I dare say the right hon. Gentleman himself believes, that what is wanted in this country is an entire revolution of the whole system of railway valuation, I am not now using offensive language in regard to the principles of the Bill, but merely its technique. Our archaic form of railway valuation has been extremely slipshod, ever since it first existed. The most competent valuers agree that our present system of valuation of railway property is entirely fallacious. There is no scientific valuation or rating of railway property. If we are to have a Bill of this kind at all, it is of the highest importance that the whole system in regard to the rating of this form of property should be revolutionised and that some centralised form of valuation should be drawn up. I do not see how it is possible, in fairness to the Opposition, and having regard to the present state of rating and valuation in this country, to dispose adequately of this Clause, when we only have five or six hours for discussion.
Then, when we come to the other Clauses, I think hon. Members will agree that the mainspring of this Bill is to be found in the valuation Clauses. They are entirely novel in character and, if put into action, they would mean separate valuation lists for the same kind of property, highly technical in character and involving great experience among valuers. I do not deny that we have such experience, but even our most experienced valuers working under this Bill would require more definite instructions, more straightforward and less ambiguous instructions, than are in this Bill now. Then we come to agricultural
hereditaments, and I see here much difficulty arising again. As the Clause is drawn in regard to agricultural hereditaments, it would indeed be extremely easy for evasions to take place. Reading the Clause as to what land would gain the benefit of the proposal of the Government, and what land would not enjoy this benefit, reminds me of some of the fancy taxes brought in under a famous land valuation, when all sorts of evasions were drafted and the Finance Act of that year was finally dropped, because of the evasions cunningly devised by those opposed to the Measure. I have not so far challenged the principle of the Bill. I am not doing so. Much could be said about it by way of criticism. Along that line there is danger of getting out of order but as a Member of the House of Commons, faced with a Bill of this kind, so involved in its character as it is now drawn, and with administration arising out of it so momentous, I appeal in all sincerity to the Minister of Health that, while the Government uses the guillotine in regard to some of the minor Clauses of the Bill, he might use his influence with his colleagues in the Cabinet to see that some fail measure of time shall be devoted to this portion of the Bill dealing with instructions on valuation. The guillotine should not be used as fiercely on those parts of the Bill as in some others, and more especially is this the case in regard to Clause 5, which deals with the railways.
There is much dubiety as to who is the ultimate Court of Appeal, as far as instructions are laid down in the Schedule. Are the local authorities, working as the rating authorities, and the assessment committees, to be the final Court of Appeal or is the revenue officer to be the emperor who will rule in his particular area? I am not going to say any more with regard to that because I want to keep, if possible, to non-contentious grounds. There is, naturally, apprehension that, while ostensibly local authorities will have the last word in regard to any contention arising out of valuation assessments, the Schedule as now drawn would rather indicate that the revenue officer is supreme over the local authorities and the assessment committees in any question of distinction or difference of opinion. There, again, considerable time must be set apart to make that clear. It may be necessary to draft a new
Clause, or new paragraphs to the Schedule, but the whole of this Bill is so momentous, and it may mean so much in the future, it is so involved and calls for so much technical skill, that I do appeal to the Government on this matter. I do not wish to offer more opposition than is necessary, but I do urge the Government to devote more attention to these particular Clauses to which I have called attention. If the guillotine is to be used at all, I urge that it should be used with greater discretion on those parts of the Bill to which I have referred. In that way there would be less excuse for us if, when we come to criticise the final element of this great composite scheme of the Government, we protest that we have not had ample time to discuss, amend and correct it where possible. I most sincerely ask the Minister of Health to do what he can to give us as much time as possible, taking everything into consideration, on these involved and technical parts of this Bill.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I must say a few words on this Motion, from an entirely different point of view from that of Members who are supporting or opposing it because of the merits or demerits of the particular Clauses or provisions of the Bill to which it relates. It seems to me that there is, on the face of it and at first hearing, great force in what was said by one hon. Member, that we ought to do our work and that if our work cannot be done in proper time, then we must make the necessary arrangements. That seems quite unanswerable, but there is really an answer to it. The answer is this: A Committee of the whole House is not useful work at all. It really has become an unreality, and an unreality prodigiously wasteful of human time and human effort. I shall vote in favour of this Motion, because it diminishes to some extent the burden on this House, without, I think, at all diminishing the efficiency of the proceedings of the House. Therefore, it is a gain, but, of course, it is a most absurd proposal. The only thing that can be said for it is that it is less absurd than the procedure that would follow if we did not have such a Resolution.
But is it not time that the majority of this House, or on the Front Benches, or whoever are to decide this question,
tried to apply to the procedure of this House a more complete remedy? I suggest that there is quite an easy remedy. I do not suppose that really it is a remedy, because no evil is completely cured, but it will be a considerable alleviation of the evil under which we are at present suffering, and it might be quite easily applied. We have the alternative procedure now of sending a Bill to a Standing Committee, but at present that is attended by difficulties of its own, and those difficulties mainly result from the circumstances that the Standing Committee meets in the morning. Now, I admit, it is inconvenient for a great many Members to attend, and there is, therefore, some difficulty in getting a quorum or such a representative attendance that the majority of the Committee can come to a reasonable decision. Supposing you varied that procedure. Supposing that, in the months of April, May and June the House always adjourned as a House immediately after Questions on Tuesdays and Wednesdays and that, thereupon, they sat in as many Standing Committees as were needed—five or six, perhaps, or not so many—and 80 or 100 Members attending each Committee, and dealing with the Committee stages of all the Bills; not only a few Bills, but all the Bills, except, of course, those purely formal Bills that go through Committee of the Whole House as a matter of course. The alteration required in the Standing Orders would be exceedingly small. We might need a new Standing Order permitting the adjournment of the House after Questions. Perhaps that would not be entirely necessary. The system would be simple from the point of view of technical procedure. You would adjourn always after Questions on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in those three months, and it would work out that those Members who attended a Standing Committee in which there was not much business——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dennis Herbert): I am loath to interrupt the Noble Lord, but I am afraid he must not develop this too far, because his suggestion would mean that an alteration of Standing Orders would be necessary. He is not entitled to discuss that on this occasion.

Lord H. CECIL: I only want to show how you could have a workable alternative to such a Resolution as this, and how you would relieve the House from what, I am sure, everybody recognises is a clumsy expedient. No one thinks, even the Government do not think, that this Motion is the best procedure possible. The only alternative, really, to these Motions is to have a larger recourse to Standing Committees. The only way to make these Standing Committees work well is to make the system easy and, therefore, there is a workable alternative. The only objection to it—it may be an advantage—is that the Government have not got necessarily the same control over Standing Committees as they have over the Whole House, but they can reverse the decision of a Standing Committee on the Report stage and, therefore, they have got control over procedure, although they may not have control in every detail which comes before the Standing Committee. But that is really an advantage, because I do not think you will get able men coming into this Parliament if they are merely to be tight-rope artists or mere mechanical machines for voting in the Lobby on certain occasions. If that were to be always the case, I do not think you will have them coming any more. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, perhaps, knows that, because if they do not attend, they receive circulars—I receive them—reminding them of their duties. I tell him, partly in sympathy and partly in contrition, that those often fail to produce that amendment which should follow repentance. But you always will have the difficulty of attendance, and the difficulty of getting able men to stand as candidates for Parliament, unless you can give them a real share—perhaps a subordinate share—in the legislative business. That would be secured, to some extent, in the Standing Committees.
Therefore, I press the Government to consider whether some alternative might not be made. I suppose that next Session we shall be on our death-beds and occupied entirely with preparations for our latter end, and, therefore, there will be no time for an arrangement of this kind, but, for those who take part in the joyful resurrection that will follow, this arrangement might be considered. The Government might consider whether,
in the next Parliament, some such change in procedure might not be made, and the House spared these recurring Motions, which are an absurdity and a sham, but which are better than the long drawn-out, wearying, burdensome and quite useless procedure of Committee of the Whole House as it would be conducted without this Motion.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I do not propose to follow the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) in regard to the suggestions which he has made for the improvement of our procedure. I may have an opportunity of doing so upon some other occasion. I am sure many hon. Members feel that there is need for bringing our rules of procedure up-to-date, and I hope that an opportunity will be found before very long of doing so. Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) I do not intend offering any objections to the principle involved in the introduction of the guillotine Motion. What I do submit is that when we have to deal with a Bill of this importance and complexity, it is necessary to have every facility for the discussion of all the multifarious and complicated issues which arise. My point is that we need much greater facilities for discussing the effect of this Measure upon Scotland than are given in the particular Motion which is now before the House.
I wish to deal with this question from the Scottish point of view. The Prime Minister has referred to the general approval with which this Bill has been received, but that is not the case as far as Scotland is concerned. I am not referring just now to the rating proposals of the Government as a whole, but to this particular Bill, and the method which is proposed of applying the rating principles which it contains to Scotland. The Prime Minister has recently received a deputation from the National Farmers Union of Scotland protesting against the methods of the Government in applying their rating proposals to Scotland. We have had innumerable expressions of opinion in regard to this Bill in the Scottish Press, and from many Scottish public bodies, urging that the methods proposed by the Government of applying the plan of this Measure to Scotland demand revision. I do not propose to discuss the merits of
these various questions at the present moment, but I wish to illustrate the sort of questions for which we demand more adequate opportunities of discussion. First of all, there is the idea of excluding houses. We would prefer some rates to be left on the land, and all rates removed from the houses. That has been the line of advance for many years in Scottish legislation, and more particularly in reference to small holdings.
There is nothing more distressing to the agricultural community in Scotland than the bad condition of housing, especially in the case of farm servants. Consequently, any proposal which would tend to penalise housing is a radically bad proposal, and the relief should be given to houses even more than to the land. In England, farmhouses and cottages are valued separately from the land. Now the Secretary of State for Scotland proposes to fix arbitrarily a proportion of the value of the whole hereditament to represent the value of the housing, and the proportion he suggests is one-sixth of the value of the holding. A great many anomalies and injustices will occur. Only the day before yesterday I heard from a man who has a large pastoral farm of about 2,000 acres, for which he pays £130 a year rent, and he told me that he will have to pay on £22, or one-sixth of the rental value, although the only house on his farm is a shepherd's house worth about £4 a year. That is the kind of anomaly which is inherent in the proposals which the Minister of Health has made. You may have a set of buildings which are adequate for a particular size of farm——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is now discussing the merits of the Bill. He must confine his remarks to the Motion before the House.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am trying to illustrate my contention that in these matters there are great differences between Scotland and England. In Scotland, the landlords pay half of the rates. The position in Scotland is the result of a long-standing custom whereby the landlords pay half and the tenants pay half, and under the Acts which were passed in 1896 and 1923 the landlords now pay on three-quarters and the tenants on one-quarter. The Prime Minister says that
the Government are going to give relief to industrial hereditaments, but it seems to me that in the case of Scotland whereas he is going to give the full relief to the landlords——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is now discussing the merits of the Bill, and that is not in order.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I will pass from that subject, as I only desire to point out that in all these respects the conditions in Scotland are different from those in England. There is the difference in respect of the valuation of the buildings which in England are valued separately from the land, whereas in Scotland the holding is valued as one agricultural unit; and the difference in respect of the payment of rates which in England are all paid by the tenant, whereas in Scotland the landlord pays half. The proposals in the Bill which are made in order to meet these differences are not at all clear to the Scottish people, and we demand more information about them. As far as these proposals are understood in Scotland, they have received considerable opposition. Then in Scotland, the tenure of the smallholders is absolutely different from the tenure of any land in England.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member needs to go into that question for the purposes of any argument that is relevant to this particular Motion. The hon. and gallant Member may refer to the different forms of land tenure in Scotland for the purposes of arguing that more time should be given for the consideration of this Bill, but he must not go into that question in detail.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I was simply referring to this question to show that there was a difference as far as the tenure of the smallholder in Scotland is concerned. That means that the application of this Bill to smallholders will have to be very carefully considered. I will not submit any further illustrations to the House. I have chosen four or five different respects in which the situation as it affects Scotland is totally different from the situation in England. I am aware that I cannot discuss these questions in detail at the present moment, but I wish to say that Scottish Members will demand time to
discuss them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] If I am out of order, I am sure the Deputy-Speaker will put me in order. I think I am in order in saying that we certainly shall demand adequate time for the discussion of each and all the points which I have raised.
We say that this Guillotine Motion, under which we are only allowed one day for the discussion of Clause 9, the Scottish Clause, along with
Clause 10, the New Clauses, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion,
is quite inadequate, because it means that we shall only have one or two hours to discuss each and all of those very complicated and difficult points which I have mentioned this afternoon. We shall require half a day at least, and I think we should demand a clay for the discussion of those very difficult and complicated questions affecting Scotland. Several English Ministers have spoken on these rating proposals. We have had speeches from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health, and the President of the Board of Trade, but not one single Minister had spoken on behalf of Scotland, no one had yet explained the application to Scotland of the scheme contained in this Bill, and we had had no statement on behalf of Scotland or any explanation of the Scottish situation until 7th June, when, for the first time, after the introduction of the Budget, we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland. On that occasion, the whole of the time was mortgaged for the discussion of the broad issues presented by the rating proposals, and there has been no discussion whatever of the very difficult and separate problems presented by the application of these proposals to Scotland. Therefore, I do appeal to the Government to give at least one day for a full discussion of these Scottish problems. If they will announce that they will do that, I, for my part, shall be quite ready to vote for this Motion, but, if they deny to Scotland proper time for discussion of these problems, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Motion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a remarkable fact that every speaker up to the present has recorded his assent to the general proposition that the system of
procedure which we call the Guillotine has become a necessary part of the procedure of the House of Commons, and that, indeed, without it, it would be impossible to carry on our business satisfactorily. My Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) has made an interesting suggestion for the improvement of our procedure by some other method, but I think that on the whole I am inclined to agree with him that discussion on that subject would be better postponed until the joyful Resurrection. I would only point out to him that there is one outstanding difference between the proceedings of a Committee of the whole House and those of Standing Committees upstairs, and that lies in the powers possessed by the Chairman; and, unless such a proposal were accompanied by the granting to the Chairman of a Standing Committee much greater powers than he has at present, it would be impossible entirely to substitute Standing Committees for a Committee of the whole House. I would like to say, with all respect to my Noble Friend, that I cannot quite agree that discussions in Committee of the whole House are necessarily useless. On the contrary, I have found that, although a body of such size might seem on the face of it to be a somewhat unwieldy one for dealing with matters of detail, nevertheless, when the House is in the right mood, discussions in this House are businesslike and extremely useful, not merely to the Members of the Opposition, but frequently to the Government, as pointing out how their Measures can be improved.

Lord H. CECIL: Could it not be done by means of deputations of Members interested to the Ministry of Health?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that there would be difficulty in selecting the members of the deputation, because, as I daresay my Noble Friend has observed, Members who seem to act with intelligence on one day appear on another day to have lost all trace of it. Let me come to the particular grounds on which those who assent; in general to the principle of the Guillotine profess to take exception to its use on this special occasion. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) appeared to be inclined to lay it down that the use of the Guillotine was only justifiable for dealing with prolonged,
deliberate and frivolous obstruction——

Mr. GREENWOOD: And when there is pressure of time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a very important addition. While I agree that such obstruction as the hon. Gentleman described might be in itself a complete justification for the introduction of the Guillotine, yet to my mind it is not necessary to rely upon that ground alone for the purpose of justifying the procedure that we are suggesting to the House this afternoon. I should be inclined to go a little further than the hon. Member. I agree that the question of time is a very important factor, and I am inclined myself to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who, I think I am right in saying, said that in his view no highly contentious Measure could really, at any rate under our present Standing Orders, be satisfactorily dealt with in this House except under some restriction such as the Guillotine, because it is only under such restrictions that you can get discussion concentrated on the really vital points at issue. That is the view that I personally take, after a certain amount of experience in this House, and I believe that it will be found more and more in the future that, in the case of Measures of a complicated, lengthy or highly controversial character, it really is necessary to have some sort of time-table by which discussion can be divided into separate compartments on different parts of the Bill.
Unless you have that, the Opposition, who, naturally, are opposing the Bill, and almost inevitably must take advantage of every opportunity they can get to voice their opposition and prevent Bills from passing into law, may exhaust themselves at the beginning of the discussion in talking about matters which are not of vital importance, and, consequently, we come up against the position that, either there will be no time left for the remainder of the discussion, or the Closure must be applied. We can get on without the Guillotine by the free use of the Closure under the procedure of Standing Order No. 26. We have had occasion to make use of that procedure in the past, upstairs as well as down-stairs,
but the Standing Order is one which, although it may be used when necessary if it is not possible to get through the business in any other way, does not lead to a thorough and exhaustive examination of the details of a Measure, and certainly does not tend to remove the impression of bitterness of feeling between the two sides.
Personally, I am not complaining on this occasion of any frivolous, prolonged or deliberate obstruction, but I do say that, if this Bill is to be got through in a reasonable time, and if we are to do what I believe all sections of the House-desire, that is to say, really to give serious attention to the most difficult and doubtful parts of the Bill—and, when I speak of doubtful parts, I mean questions on which there may be differences of opinion—I think it is necessary that we should have a time-table. I want to say another word also on the question of time. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put the view that the House ought to get away for a reasonable period of rest, and that it would be convenient to hon. Members to spend their holidays at the same time as their families take them. An hon. Member opposite repudiated with some warmth the idea that he would for a moment put the question of holidays above that of work, and that, of course, is common ground; I am sure that not a single Member here would for a moment take a holiday if by any chance there was the possibility of doing work in this House. But there is a more important question of time involved. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House that, while hon. Members opposite are opposing and criticising our proposals, nevertheless, individual Members of both parties come to tell my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, and also voice their views in this House, that industry of various kinds and in various parts of the country is in such a desperate plight that it cannot wait for 18 months, and that it ought at once to have some part at least of the benefit which it will ultimately receive under our proposals.
It will be within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who has indulged in a number of prophecies in connection
with this Bill, prophesied, among other things, that the time-table which I sketched out to the House on the Second Reading of the Bill would be insufficient for our purpose, and that we should not be able to get through the necessary procedure of sorting out and classification in time to give the relief that we promised by the 1st October, 1929. If the right hon. Gentleman be correct in saying that I am taking considerable risks in that time-table, and that we shall have very serious difficulty in getting through all the work that has to be done in making these distinctions and classifications by the 1st October, 1929, does not that indicate to the House the necessity of getting this Bill passed at the earliest possible moment? Hon. Members in no part of the House can deny the force and cogency of that argument. Although it may be said that this is the wrong way of getting it, everyone agrees that some relief is urgently required for necessitous areas. That relief cannot be got without going through this process of investigation and examination of claims and insertion of the necessary information in the valuation list. The longer we take to pass this Bill, the longer the period before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, the greater will be the danger that we may miss the critical date, namely, the 1st October, when the new half-year begins, and the more important, therefore, it is that we should introduce such a procedure as will make it perfectly certain that no such disaster can ensue.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, in a peroration which I think I have heard from him on more than one occasion before, found a reason for the bringing forward of this proposal in this way in the desire of the Government to restrict debate. Yes, we do desire to restrict debate which is irrelevant, but we have no desire to restrict—on the contrary, we shall welcome it—debate upon those parts of the Bill which we agree are matters on which there may be fair differences of opinion, and on which it is possible that Members may he able to put forward facts or considerations which we had not thought of or which have not been brought to our attention. We have the greatest possible interest in sending this Measure on to the Statute Book in the most perfect form
possible. No one has such a great interest as we have in that. If it is wrong, if it becomes law in a form in which it will not work, it is the Government that is going to suffer. Therefore, we have no reason for restricting debate; on the contrary, we have every reason for getting our Measure sifted down to the very finest point. That does not mean, however, that we are to waste time in talking about comparatively trivial matters, and the effect of setting out a time-table such as that comprised in this Motion is that it gives the Opposition the change, of which they can avail themselves if they choose, of selecting the particular points to which they attach most importance and devoting their time to those points.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did not object to our proposal on the ground that there had been no frivolous obstruction. He objected to it because he said there had been no consultation with the Members of the Opposition beforehand, and because he thought the time ought to be further extended. It is almost too much to expect that on a Motion of this kind you can get agreement between the Government and the Opposition as to the time necessary for the discussion of a particular Bill. But, of course, there is every opportunity for Members of the Opposition to put down their own ideas of how the time should be allocated, and while we have put down the arrangement of time as between the various Clauses which seems to us on the whole most convenient and to give the bulk of the time where it is most wanted, if hon. Members apposite will agree among themselves upon any other distribution of the five days available we shall not raise any objection.

Mr. GREENWOOD: My difficulty is that you cannot get sufficient time to discuss important points arising on, say, Clause 5. The time is cut so closely with only three; days that it is quite impossible to get a fair distribution for the substantial points.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not so much addressing myself to the hon. Gentleman's point, which I understood to be that he wants more time altogether, but, having examined the Clauses very carefully, I came to the conclusion that we have allowed quite enough time for
the important Clauses of the Bill. Clause 2 deals with the definition of agricultural land, and there is practically nothing new in that. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) said there were innumerable opportunities for evasion in the Bill. The definition is not a new one. It is an old definition. It has stood the test of over 30 years. The relief of agricultural land and buildings is not new. It already exists. All we are doing in regard to agricultural land and buildings is to increase the relief from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. There is no new principle involved in that. It seems to me there is really only one point of any substance on the Clause, and that is the question of the severance of sporting rights from the value of the land. Clause 3 is important, but Clause 4 does not compare with it, and we thought in giving a whole day to Clauses 3 and 4, we were affording ample time for concentrated discussion on the points that arise. Our discussions on Clause 1 ranged over a very wide area and we settled in those discussions some points which might very easily have been raised on Clause 3, and it is not necessary to discuss them again. Therefore, on Clause 3, important as it is, and desirable as it is that it should be debated, there is hardly sufficient matter to justify more than the time given.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Seven hours!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You can do a wonderful lot of discussion in seven hours if you address yourself strictly to the point. Clauses 5 and 6 are parallel to 3 and 4. There are special questions to be raised on them but, as has Been pointed out by hon. Members opposite, they are not so much Opposition Amendments. They are put down by Members on this side.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: On all sides.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought it was suggested by hon. Members opposite that a good many have been put down by hon. Members behind me. At any rate, there are Amendments that are suggested by the railway companies. Of course it is necessary for bodies who are interested in a Measure of this kind to put down Amendments in order to protect their position, but it does not follow that, when
you come to see what their position is and have time to examine their arguments, you may not be able to meet interests of this kind to some extent and, if so, we may very easily find that the questions that remain to be discussed on Clauses 5 and 6 are not very serious. There is only one other Clause of real serious importance and that is the Scottish Clause. There again, if hon. Members from Scotland think the time insufficient, let them come to an agreement with their colleagues. It is rather for them than for us. As long as we do not run over the total time we have put down for the Bill, I can assure them they will not find us raising any difficulty about a re-arrangement of the time.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I feel that this Motion is an abuse of a very sound principle. The Noble Lord said the Guillotine was a clumsy instrument. I do not know whether I agree with him. I think it can be, and ought to be, a very highly polished and efficient scientific instrument for the control of sensible debate in the House. I do not know, however, that I agree entirely with what the Noble Lord said on the subject of Standing Committees. We have to protect the interests of the House itself, and we have to be fully aware all the time that this is the centre of British politics and British administration, and to look with extreme jealousy upon any proposal to make the methods of Government a mere hole-and-corner affair. Nevertheless, there may be something to be said for his point of view if that protection is made to be found in an adequate Report stage. Although I agree with the principle of the Guillotine as an efficient instrument of government and of discussion, I think this is a Measure that requires much more time than the ordinary Measure that is debated in this House, and this stage of the policy of the Government embodied in this Measure is surely one of the most vital stages in that policy. The policy is one upon which by-elections are being fought and about which members of the Government are going to constituencies to talk and appeal to the people, and this cramping of time upon such a vital stage in this discussion of that policy is exceedingly bad. On the other hand, I agree that it ought to be possible, in nine days, on an ordinary Measure, though not on such a Measure of firstclass
importance as this, to say everything for and against that can be said about it. The drip, drip, drip of repetition that goes on in this House is appalling, and if a scientific instrument could be devised much more up-to-date and efficient than the present procedure of the House it would be of great advantage to us and to the business of the nation.
I want to speak in very strong terms of the point put by the Prime Minister, that certain business has to be done, and if we are to do it in time to enjoy our holidays with our families, our Debates must be restricted. It is time a protest was made against the attitude of those who speak from the old traditional aspect of business in this House. The idea that Government is the hobby of a leisured class and that it must not interfere with their social or business considerations, has got to be overthrown if we are ever to deal effectively with the great social problems we are sent here to deal with. We have already had twice the holiday—and we have been paid for it—that the great majority of people in my constituency ever get, although they work hard during the rest of the year. I go to a poor constituency. How am I to explain and to justify, not only the interim holiday we have had, but the coming three months' holiday? And yet the plea is put forward that there is not the Parliamentary time available to deal with important matters. I cannot excuse myself. All I can do is to utilise my time as best I can, as others here do, and probably many in other parts of the House, in propaganda and general political work outside. But our real business is in this House, and we ought not to talk about lack of Parliamentary time when we are looking forward to taking three months' holiday now and more than three months in the course of the year.
6.0 p.m.
It is said our work is very strenuous while we are here. It may be. We have all-night sittings, as we did the night before last. Fortunately I was not here. I was at Carmarthen helping to bring in the sheaves, which are nearly ripe. But I read the Report of the Debate and, judging by what I read, the House was deliberately wasting time. The Debate was one of the most futile we could have had. That kind of thing goes on here in this de-vitalised atmosphere, and we talk about strenuous
work. There is room for improvement and room for better business principles. If we applied ourselves on businesslike lines to these things, we should not have so much occasion to talk about the strenuousness of our work. It would be quite possible for the Government to give the House the opportunity to come back, not in November but in October. Why not? We have all the time we want to have with our families. I wonder how many Members of this House want to spend two months with their families. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I will undertake to say why not. The average Member of the House will not do anything of the kind. You talk about spending your time with your families apart from the home life one has in the ordinary way! I do not think that it is necessary to make a plea of that kind in order to shirk the real work that we are sent to do and that we are paid to do. I do not think our families will be likely to object to our doing that work and doing it in a businesslike and an efficient way. There is no danger of anything being held up if we have our holidays at a time when we can spend them with our families, that is to say, from the beginning of August, and then come back in October in order to deal with the Measure preliminary to the other parts of the policy of the Government. I enter my most emphatic protest once again against the idea that the House of Commons has to have all this holiday time simply because of the old tradition that politics is the hobby of people who have great social and great business responsibilities or activities. They have to look at the business government of this country from a different point of view in the future. Problems of economics and of industry and the great social questions demand better business principles and the whole of the time of hon. Members and not simply time given as a hobby.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Like almost every other Member who has spoken, I regard the guillotine at the present juncture in our Parliamentary system as a most unfortunate but necessary expedient. I can quite realise that the Government are bound on occasions to introduce it and to enforce it. I rise at this juncture to ask my right hon. Friend
the Secretary of State for Scotland to give us a reply to the arguments which were advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). It is typical of this Bill that the reply has come entirely from an English Minister. Our objection, as Scottish Members, to this Bill is that it includes the whole of the rating system of Scotland as a mere afterthought. So far we have heard very little from the responsible Minister for Scotland about the Scottish rating system. He knows, as every Member of the House knows, that there is a special rating system in Scotland, and that Commission after Commission has sat to consider improvements in the rating system of Scotland in the same way as Commission after Commission has sat to consider the rating improvements in England, thereby identifying the system of rating in Scotland as a purely Scottish system. This is a purely English Bill. In reality it has nothing to do with Scotland, yet it interferes with and revolutionises the whole rating system of Scotland.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland put the Scottish case very fully. We have asked for at least half a day if not a whole day. An hon. Friend behind me suggests that we have asked for a whole day. I put down an Amendment to that effect. I understand that that Amendment is out of order, but this is the only opportunity which we have of pressing the Scottish claim. I see, for example, in the time-table of the English part of the Bill, that Clause 2 is given up to 7.30 on the first allotted day, but Clause 2 in the Bill deals with English agriculture. Scottish agriculture is just as important as English agriculture, and from the rating point of view much more difficult. We in Scotland are not getting half a day for Scottish agriculture. We are not even getting half a day for the whole of Scottish rating, including Scottish agriculture. Surely, the Prime Minister must regard that as an indefensible position. I would beg of the Prime Minister to give his personal attention to this claim. It is not an exaggerated claim. It is a fair and a just claim. We merely ask that the Scottish rating system should not be put in this Clause and merely treated as an appendage to an English Bill. We ask
that fair and reasonable time should be given for a discussion of what in Scotland is just as important as the rating system in England.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland stand at that Box and give us some sort of reply to the contention that we are putting forward? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has suggested to us that the Scottish Members should go as a deputation and arrange a time. Who should lead us in that deputation more properly than the Secretary of State for Scotland? If I might be allowed to say so, I would move that the Secretary of State for Scotland be now the chairman of that deputation. I would, therefore, ask him to take the opportunity which has been offered of really acting as the first commoner in Scotland and pressing Scottish claims in the proper quarter. I am sure that if he did so he would meet with the approval of all Scottish Members. He knows from his post-bag as well as I do that nobody in Scotland really understands the proposals which are being put forward. I have seen resolutions from most important bodies of farmers, not a single one of whom understands the proposals. Surely, therefore, my right hon. Friend must see that in the interests of the good government of Scotland he ought to stand up now and declare that Scottish interests in this connection should not be overlooked, and that they should be given at least half a day in the general discussion.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I would like, in speaking from these benches, to reinforce as far as I can the request that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and by previous speakers. I do think—and I am talking here solely from the point of view of Scotland—that the alterations which are going to be made in the rating of Scotland are of sufficient importance to require more discussion than can be given in the limited time provided in the timetable laid down by the Government. I admit at once that the guillotine, a necessary instrument, must mean that some subjects have to suffer at the expense of others, but I do urge, from the Scottish point of view, that we are here going to make a change which it will be enormously difficult to explain to the people of Scotland. They will look to
this House for an explanation of it, and if the discussion is shortened or the question is burked in any way, I think that Scotland will have a just cause for grievance. I, therefore, venture to say to the Minister of Health, and particularly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that while we Unionist Members are very loath, indeed, to impede in any way the conduct of business, yet we in common with other Scottish Members do urge that Scotland should have a larger proportion of time than that which is allowed under the time-table. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I notice that the Opposition agree with that. They may regard this as a revolt. There is no revolt. I am sure that I have not made any suggestion that is offensive to the Opposition, but I can assure the House, as I assure the Secretary of State for Scotland, that in the remarks I am making I am speaking not only for myself but, I am sure, I am giving expression to the opinion field by every Scottish Unionist Member if not by every Scottish Member in the House of Commons at the present time.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am not sure that the best way that we of the Opposition can deal with this Bill is to allow it to go through in the most chaotic fashion possible. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland does not prompt the varied interests in Scotland to put their case on this Clause and to have it thoroughly discussed, nothing but chaos will result. Every hon. Member knows from his postbag that large and representative bodies in Scotland simply do not understand with what this Clause deals. The Secretary of State for Scotland is aware that there are fundamental difficulties between the Scottish position and the English position. He knows, for example, that it is only in Scotland and not in England that in the Bill which is before us the tenant farmer is going to be in pocket; that he is not only going to avoid his rates but he is going to have money handed back to him. That is not going to apply to Scotland. All sorts of different circumstances will arise out of the chaotic condition which will result if Clause 9 is not properly considered. I am hoping that in the interests of Scotland this Clause will be properly considered and adequate time allowed for it. But in the political interests which
I have more largely at heart—it is in the fundamental interests of Scotland at the moment to "turtle" this Government—this best thing that can happen is that under the guillotine Motion such as is proposed all the varied and distinctive legislation in Scotland shall be thrown into chaos and we shall be treated as a mere satellite of England. That is going to happen unless the Secretary of State for Scotland insists upon adequate time being given for the discussion of Clause 9.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I appreciate, of course very much indeed the anxiety which my fellow Members from Scotland have on a subject such as this proposal to incorporate all matters connected with the rating system. As one who has been responsible for investigating the subject of the proposals to this House, no-one appreciates more the intricacies and the difficulties which the problem presents. I will say at once that the Government are conscious of the fact that this matter is one which, in justice to Scotland and to Scottish Members, should be given a fair and a reasonable time. I am, therefore, prepared to say here and now on behalf of the Government that they will give an extra half day for a discussion on the Committee stage of this Clause dealing with Scottish interests. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will, at a later stage, move the necessary Amendment so that this can be done.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: The result of nearly half a day's discussion has been that we are going to get an extra half day for Scotland. One of my hon. Friends has talked about the drip of repetition in this House. In supporting that view, I would refer to what the Minister of Health said earlier about the unnecessary speeches that are made on every important Measure, and I would allude particularly to the fact that we have been debating a guillotine Motion, which is intended to save time, ever since a quarter to four. Looking at the Amendments on the Order Paper, we are likely to be engaged for a considerable time yet. The trouble is, that whenever an important Measure is introduced, no matter what the Government may be, they have to introduce a guillotine Motion. No Government has done anything to remove the necessity for the guillotine. You will agree, Mr. Speaker,
as you are in a position to realise, that the lesson before us under the present procedure is that the machinery of Parliament is breaking down. It is inadequate to carry out the modest programme even of the present Government. The Government had the intention of rising about the third week in July, and to begin the new Session before Christmas. That programme has gone by the board. They will, no doubt, have to sacrifice a number of minor but useful Measures, although earlier in the Session we wasted day after day by rising at 5 or 6 o'clock, or even earlier in the evening.
The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) put his finger on one of the causes of the trouble, and that is that the Committee of the whole House is an extremely clumsy and inefficient way of dealing with a complicated and difficult Measure like this, especially a technical Measure. This Bill, in the first place, should have been sent to a carefully-chosen Standing Committee upstairs, as was done with the Railway Amalgamation Bill—a very big Bill but not so important as this one—and the technical part of the Bill should be thoroughly thrashed out upstairs. The Standing Committee system should be far more largely adopted, instead of our wasting time first of all and then having to submit to the guillotine. A further lesson which we have learned to-day, during the last hour and a half, when the Scottish Members had adorned the Debate with their speeches, is that it is absolutely necessary to remove Scottish affairs from the floor of this building in Westminster.
This Bill is intended to deal with Scotland. The reason is that the Government have not time to introduce two separate Bills. The sensible thing would have been to introduce a second Bill dealing with the entirely different case of Scotland, but there was no time to occupy the whole of the British House of Commons in dealing with a Scottish Bill, in the present state of the timetable. If anything could demonstrate the need for the devolution of Scottish affairs, this afternoon's proceedings have surely proved it. I hope that to-day's proceedings will be noted over the border, and that the movement for Scottish devolution or Scottish Home Rule will be immensely strengthened. The speech of
the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) would not then have to be curtailed on the Floor of this House, but would receive attention in a purely Scottish assembly.
The third lesson is clear, and I would apply it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. I have great sympathy with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He is trying to perform a very important task with obsolete machinery. Our system of procedure in this House has become impossible, and that is why a guillotine Motion has to be brought in, much against the will of the right hon. Gentleman, whenever a first-class Measure is under discussion. We had such a Motion last year and the year before, and the previous Conservative Government had one. We had guillotine Motions galore during the Coalition Government's tenure of office. I have seen about 20 guillotine Motions introduced in the last 10 years. The Prime Minister gave us a sketch of the business of the remaining part of the Session. We have still seven days of Supply. I am going to use strong language now. Every Session this House wastes 20 days in Committee of Supply of the Whole House. For the real purpose of bringing forward grievances before Supply and bringing about economies in administration, these 20 Supply days in Committee of the Whole House are absolutely useless. It would be very much better instead of having 20 Supply days on the Floor of this House to set up Standing Committees for each of the principal spending departments, in Grand Committee upstairs, proportionate to the strength of parties in the House. The detailed examination of the Estimates should then take place upstairs, and a defeat in Standing Committee should not lead to the resignation of the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must not extend the discussion to a general Debate on how Supply days should be allocated.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I apologise. I did not intend to do that. I was only following up the argument which was started by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University. Some remedy must be found for the congestion of business which leads to the
necessity of such a guillotine measure. This is an extreme case of the guillotine being undesirable—it is always undesirable, because it impairs the rights of the House of Commons—in view of the complications of this Bill and how much it affects every interest in the country. The use of the guillotine will mean that certain important parts of the Bill must be left undiscussed and there will be complications and difficulties outside, and litigation will result. I do hope that during the long holidays of which my hon. Friends have complained, the three months' recess, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will take counsel with his friends and see if some better method of saving the time of Parliament could not be arrived at. I suggest first of all, an alteration of the Standing Rules of Committee upstairs and the better use of the available time at the beginning of the Session. The legislative programme of the present Government is meagre. Imagine a strong Labour Government, with a large majority, bringing in a complicated and lengthy programme of legislation on, say, six great subjects of social importance! What would our possibilities be of making any real progress without continual resort to the guillotine, under the present procedure? This is one of the greatest problems of Parliamentary Government, because if the Parliamentary machine breaks down very many serious things may happen, and much chaos may result.

Mr. HARRIS: I am glad to support the suggestion coming from Scotland that another half-day should be allocated to Scotland, and I suggest that proper consideration should be given to England. I do hope that in giving this extra time to Scotland the interests of the rest of the country will not be sacrificed. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in his place. The Secretary of State for Scotland looks after the interests of Scotland, and I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as a London Member, not to sacrifice the interests of London. London has a special case of its own. Clause V deals with the separate issue of London. London is very seriously affected, because it is now exempted from the Rating and Valuation Act of 1925, but under Clause 7 that Act is to be extended to London. There
is a very reasonable proposal on the Paper that a half-day should be allotted to London.
Not only is London the capital of this country and of the Empire but we have a population of 4,500,000, with great assessable value, that assessable value being unevenly distributed. There are a great number of local authorities with different assessments which are done locally under the supervision of the London County Council. There is an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) who is a Member for a London constituency, an ex-Chairman of the London County Council and a present member of the London County Council. He will move his Amendment, or we hope he will do so, although it is suggested that he may not move it. I do not suppose that he will have a chance under the Guillotine. I want to be sure that the hon. Member, as a supporter of the Government and a representative of an important authority like the London County Council, will have an opportunity not only to move his Amendment but to have it discussed. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health as a Member for Woolwich and not as a member of the Government, to see that London interests are not sacrificed for those of Scotland. By all means let Scotland have its fair share of discussion. I recognise that Scotland has special claims, but what is the population of Scotland compared with that of London? Of course, there are many Scottish people in London, thousands of them, but London represents a higher assessable value, and a greater population than Scotland.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Member, aware that according to the last Census there were more English people taking money in Scotland than there were Scottish people in London?

Mr. HARRIS: That seems to indicate that Scotland is becoming more prosperous. I do not want to rob Scotland of time, and I will support the Amendment that gives Scotland a full share of the discussion on this important Bill, but I do ask the right hon. Gentleman for Woolwich, West (Sir K. Wood) to see that we get a half day in which to discuss Cause V.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am glad that the Government have seen fit to give the extra half day to Scotland. Although I think that is quite inadequate, at least it is a step in the right direction, and one is grateful for that. It seems to me extraordinary that in arranging this programme the Secretary of State for Scotland should not have seen to it that Scottish interests were protected, and that it should not have been necessary to take up time to-day discussing the amount of time that should be given to Scotland. I have had complaints in regard to the fact that in the Government the Scottish representatives seem to lose sight of Scottish interests and that it is only by the constant urge of Scottish Members in this House that we are able to get more attention paid to Scotland. However, better late than never, and I am glad we have had this act of penitence on the part of the Secretary of State. It is rather a pity that more time is not allocated to a Measure like this. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Patronage Secretary in the arrangements he has to make and I am prepared to make him an offer now. If the Government would see their way to make it a full day we are quite willing to see the Re-organisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill abandoned by the Government thrown on the scrapheap. We do not want it; and it would give more time for other business.
The Government are constantly pressing the importance of this Eating and

Valuation Measure, which, according to the rhetoric of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is going to revive British industries; foreign merchants are going to fall over one another in their endeavour to get British goods. If it is so fearfully important as that surely this House might put off its holiday for another week, extend the Session for another week, in order to adequately debate the proposal. If it is really true that this Measure is going to add so much to the prosperity of the industries of this country then nothing should be wanting to provide adequate discussion so that every hon. Member who has something to contribute to the subject might have an opportunity of doing so. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury would be well advised to accept the suggestion of taking a week off the long holidays. I know he is a little bit tired; the House has been so dull for many weeks past that both he and his supporters are tired, but this Measure seems to be stimulating interest among all parties in the House and I am sure that agricultural and other industries will agree that another week spent in trying to make it effective would be a week well spent.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 3, stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 125.

Division No. 218.]
AYES.
[6.37 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Briscoe, Richard George
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Astor, Viscountess
Buchan, John
Dawson, Sir Philip


Atholl, Duchess of
Buckingham, Sir H.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Atkinson, C.
Burman, J. B.
Drewe, C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Campbell, E. T.
Ellis, R. G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Bennett, A. J.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Bethel, A.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Chilcott, Sir Warden
Fielden, E. B.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Finburgh, S.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major Sir William
Foster, Sir Henry S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Couper, J. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Gates, Percy


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gamour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grace, John


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cetncert)
Savery, S. S.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Maclntyre, Ian
Shepperson, E. W.


Grotrian, H. Brent
McLean, Major A.
Skelton, A. N.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hacking, Douglas H.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hanbury, C.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Harrison, G. J. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hartington, Marquess of
Malone, Major P. B.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Margesson, Captain D.
Storry-Deans, R.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Mellor, R. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tasker, R. Inlgo.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Templeton, W. P.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Tinne, J. A.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hope, Capt. A. D. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exnter)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Pirsfild.)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Nuttall, Ellis
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Oakley, T.
Waddington, R.


Hume, Sir G. H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Pennefather, Sir John
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Penny, Frederick George
Warrender, Sir Victor


Iveagh, Countess of
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Jephcott, A. R.
Perring, Sir William George
Watts, Sir Thomas


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Pilcher, G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Lamb, J. Q.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Withers, John James


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Preston, William
Wolmer, Viscount


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Burner, J. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Loder, J. de V.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wragg, Herbert


Looker, Herbert William
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lougher, Lewis
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rye, F. G.



Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Captain Bowyer and Captain Wallace.


Lumley, L. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart



Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenall, T.
Montague, Frederick


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murnin, H.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillstro')
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Naylor, T. E.


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, T.
Owen, Major G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normantor)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Baker, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.


Barr, J.
Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Briant, Frank
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bromley, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Scurr, John


Buchanan, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rnondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Connolly, M.
Kelly, W. T.
Smillie, Robert


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph VI.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Davies, Rhys John (Wetthoughton)
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Day, Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Edge, Sir William
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Strauss, E. A.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Sullivan, J.


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Mackinder, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Thurtle, Ernest
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wright, W.


Tinker, John Joseph
Wellock, Wilfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Tomlinson, R. P.
Whiteley, W.



Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Varley, Frank B.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling.


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
Windsor, Walter



Bill read a Second time.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the word "Three," and to insert instead thereof the word "Four."
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in pursuance of that spirit of sweet reasonableness which always characterises the Government, has offered a further half-day for the discussion of the particular Clause which affects Scotland, and I am now moving the first of the necessary Amendments to give effect to this undertaking. I had better make it clear that although I am proposing to insert "four" instead of "three" it is not proposed that a whole extra day is to be given and this will be made clear by subsequent Amendments.

Mr. E. BROWN: While welcoming the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, I am sorry that he has not seen his way to go a little further. The House will observe an Amendment on the Paper to which my name is attached asking for two additional days. One of our points has been met, inasmuch as a whole day will be given to the discussion in regard to Scotland, but I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman that the time-table suggested in the Amendment to which I have referred would be better than the proposal in the Amendment now before us. There is one consideration to which I think due weight has not yet been given. Whereas, under the present proposal, Clause 2, which deals with the question of agriculture, gets a bare half-day, there are 43 Amendments down for consideration dealing with agricultural land in England and Wales. When the document which has been promised by the right hon. Gentleman is available at the Vote Office, showing how the proposals of the Clause are to be applied, it may be necessary for agricultural Members to put down further Amendments in addition to the 43 already put down.
The Amendments proposed to this and other Clauses of the Bill are not all political Amendments as such. They are
mainly practical and constructive Amendments and that is especially so in regard to Clauses 2, 5 and 6. I wish I could induce the right hon. Gentleman to extend his proposal of four days to five days. I think the time-table suggested in the later Amendment which I have mentioned would meet the case more equitably than the present proposal, because it would give one day to the agricultural discussion, one day to the discussion of industrial hereditaments, and one day for the discussion of Clauses 5 and 6—which deal not merely with railways but with canals, docks and harbours, and to which there are over 50 Amendments, all raising intricate and difficult problems. These are not all large problems, I admit, but they have given rise to Amendments which have supporters in every part of the House. One day is not by any means too much for Clause 9, but I suggest also that the division of time proposed in the other Amendment would be for the general benefit. Therefore, I hope due consideration will be given to my point. There are 153 Amendments all together down for consideration, and they are fairly evenly divided between the four main issues which I have indicated. When Scottish Members meet to consider the Scottish question, a great many more Amendments will be put down to Clause 9 because of the difficulty which we have had in understanding the precise application of the Bill to Scottish conditions.

Miss LAWRENCE: The Minister has made one very small concession, having been moved, apparently, by the difficulties of what we regard as one of the less complex Clauses of this Bill. His concession is altogether unsatisfactory, and we shall not be satisfied unless the time allowed is substantially increased. We are dealing here with a Bill which was truly described by the Minister himself as a "machinery" Bill, and we are now approaching the question of machinery for the first time. Our Debate on Clause 1 was in the nature of a Second Beading Debate because, during the whole of it, two questions were discussed,
namely, the question of necessitous areas and the question of whether certain classes of property other than those dealt with did not also deserve de-rating. Those were essentially Second Reading points. I am not complaining that we had not enough time for the Second Reading. I think the time for the Second Reading was ample, particularly since part of the Committee proceedings also partook of the nature of a Second Reading Debate. Indeed it might be said that we had much time for the Second Reading owing to the peculiar disadvantages under which we laboured in regard to that Debate.
As several hon. Members have pointed out, we have been engaged in debating a serial story which is being presented to us in instalments. We do not know the end of the story and therefore, criticism is difficult. We do not even know who in the end is to get the hidden treasure. Deputations of assiduous treasure seekers have been visiting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the Prime Minister said that all was peaceful and happy in the country, I could only believe that the Chancellor had not confided in him about the secret of the treasure, and the treasure seekers. I venture to sympathise with the Chair in this matter. I know how expert you, Sir, and the Chairman of Committees are, but when the cart is in front of the horse, even the most expert driver finds himself in a difficulty. Now, for the first time, we are going to approach this question of machinery. We have left behind us the political issues and we are on the machine itself. The subjects which we discussed during the Second Reading Debate were, of course, such as might be discussed in the case of any private person who was buying machinery, namely, what is it to be used for, and how much will it cost. Now we come to the question of how the machine is going to work. There have been two classes of criticisms. Two sections of the community have put forward criticisms of the Bill. First there are the experts—the surveyors, the valuers and the people who have to work it. Their objections are entirely outside politics. All they ask is that they should know what certain Clauses mean. Was there ever a Bill which caused more confusion among the ranks of the experts than
this Bill? Was there ever a Bill containing proposals and words calling more for elucidation?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now proceeding to make a Second Reading speech on the merits of the Bill.

Miss LAWRENCE: No, Sir. Far from that, I am keeping narrowly to the question of why we want more time. I was saying that two classes of criticism have been directed against the Bill, both of which relate to questions of machinery, and I was going to point out how difficult were those questions. Take Clause 3, for example. What does it mean? There was a meeting the other day of surveyors and valuers who asked, what did the word "primarily" mean in this Clause. Eminent gentleman after eminent gentleman got up and emitted cries of distress. They said they did not know what "primarily" meant here, and we do not know what it means. My point is that we want more time, and, in support of my point, I want to show how many difficult things there are in the Bill. There are many new terms of art in the Bill which will need definition, and I merely enumerate some of them. We do not know what the word "primarily" means in this connection and the Minister does not know. The Minister says airily that if people do not know what it means they can go to the Quarter Sessions or to the High Court; and, ultimately, I suppose, at the expense of a vast amount of public time, the meaning will be determined by the Judges. The Judges always do put some sense into Acts of Parliament, and, probably, in five or six years' time, some luminary in the Courts will tell us what it means. But is it not better that Parliament should spend five or six hours in determining a matter of this kind, rather than that in the process of five or six years' time the Judges should have to determine it? Therefore, my plea is for five or six extra hours of time on this particular word. There are many other words which will cost the country a great amount of time if we cannot have these matters properly discussed here.
The Minister said that Clause 2 was an uncommonly easy Clause. He suggested that it was all beautifully simple. But the last words of Clause 2 contain one of the most strange and difficult conundrums
of the Bill. The Minister's parental partiality for his bantling blind him to the objections and to the points which other people want to discuss and which need discussion. Clause 2 contains the words, "persons of the labouring class." I have communicated with experts on the matter, and they say they have not an idea of what the words mean in this Clause. There is a reference to "persons of the working class" in the Housing Acts, but even that is a rough and ready definition. They do not know and cannot imagine what is the meaning of the term used here, and that is a point to which an hour's discussion might profitably be devoted. Then we come to points which the rating officers more or less understand, but which will be excessively difficult to administer. There are the words "industrial purposes." That is an entirely new and exceedingly doubtful term. Industrial hereditaments we do know, but industrial purposes——

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue on these lines, which, if followed out in this discussion, would lead to her example being followed by others. I would again point out to her that she cannot go into the merits of the various Clauses of the Bill on an Amendment to a Motion of this sort.

Miss LAWRENCE: I am trying to give my reasons why more time should be allotted. I have said that I want an hour at least for discussing the one point I have mentioned in Clause 2, and five or six hours for the word "primarily" in Clause 3. I want to suggest another point on which I would need two hours—[Laughter]—or, with all due deference, on which the House would need two hours. We are not arguing the narrow question as between three days and three-and-a-half days. I want to make out a case for five or six days, and I do not know how to make an addition sum without mentioning the various items of the total. The Minister himself enumerated the various Clauses, and said that Clause 2 would not take long, that Clause 3 might require half-a-day, that Clause 4 was easy and so forth. I am answering the Minister, and when he says that Clause 2 is easy, I say it is difficult. When he says that Clause 3 only requires
half-a-day, I say it requires two days, and I must point out to the House, without dwelling on them, the various items in the Minister's speech to which I am replying. I say that in Clause 4 there arises a point which nobody understands, and a new term of art which nobody can define. We know about "industrial hereditaments," but what are "industrial purposes"? If I were given time I would entreat the House to incorporate in Clause 4 a considerable part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Clause 4.
7.0 p.m.
I should need a little time for that, because what happened under Clause 4 was that the Minister said "This is a simple thing. We take the hereditaments and dissect out the things that are not used for industrial purposes," and he gave some examples. That was a very important opinion of his, but the Minister's opinion will not be in the Act of Parliament and may not be the opinion of the Law Courts. To put what the Minister said in half a dozen words into Clause 4 would take, with the greatest possible expedition, another hour and a half or two hours. I could give other pronouncements but I do not want to transgress the forms of order. On the rating of machinery there comes a second class of cases and there it is not so much un-intelligibility but new terms. Then I come to the difficulty and uncertainty of this piece of machinery from the point of view of the rating and valuation officers. Experts of all kinds have said it will be very difficult to draw the line between properties to be de-rated and properties which are not.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member-must not discuss the details of the Bill.

Miss LAWRENCE: I thought you permitted me to say that this or the other Clause would need rather more time than the Minister proposed.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would be enough.

Miss LAWRENCE: May I give my grounds? If I say this is a difficult Clause and sit down, I have said nothing I will come to the Amendments on the Paper and point out how long some of them will take to discuss and what real substantial new interests are raised. In the course of a day or two we are going
to set up a very intricate piece of machinery and we have, on the Order Paper, Amendment after Amendment, not from politicians but from men of business, putting forward matters! of importance to their trade. There is a particular set of Amendments——

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going into matters proper to the Committee stage of the Bill. She really cannot go into these matters.

Miss LAWRENCE: There are a particular set of Amendments on the Paper which are backed by those acquainted with the shipping interests, which are excessively technical and difficult. They are so technical that one would find it of some difficulty to catch their meaning at first. They are things of which the meaning is not apparent immediately. Each of them needs some detailed explanation. When you see these Amendments of such a technical character that Members of Parliament find it difficult to understand them, Amendments backed by Members speaking for their own business the shipping business, you see that to discuss those matters will take a considerable time. When persons are moving Amendments with regard to their own business, the House ought to listen with respect and humility, for they are in the position of scholars on such an occasion. It is rather a bad thing, when you are going to have a lesson on a subject you know nothing about, to limit your teacher to the amount of time you think necessary. The Minister is dealing with things outside his own province——

Sir GERALD HOHLER: This Amendment is intended, I understand, to give an extra half day for Scottish discussion. Has a single word yet been addressed by the hon. Member to this point?

Miss LAWRENCE: The actual Amendment is to change "three" into "four." The purpose of it is not disclosed on the Order Paper, and the effect of changing "three" into "four" will, if it is passed, make it impossible to change "three" into "five."

Mr. SPEAKER: I can quite understand the hon. Lady's contention, but she is arriving at it in rather a roundabout way. If her remarks were addressed
more to the Amendment and less to the Bill, it would save the time of the House.

Miss LAWRENCE: The Amendment is not enough. We cannot get this quart of discussion into the pint pot of four hours. The interests involved range over the whole field of trade, commerce, and distribution, and touch questions of a very complicated nature. Various classes of interests have put down Amendments that will need much time to consider. How is one to speak about a guillotine Motion, or a Motion to give us four hours instead of three, without saying what you want? This is a. Bill of a very technical and detailed character. Many of its details are entirely new. We are breaking fresh ground. The question of discriminating between industry and commerce is a question which this House has never touched before, and, in drawing this line, leaving this and that out, you are doing something which may conceivably be a very great hindrance to industry and production.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will not address herself to the Amendment, I shall have to ask her to sit down.

Miss LAWRENCE: I am not referring to the merits, but merely enumerating difficult subjects that will need much discussion. We ought not to have had this Bill here at all. It ought to have been upstairs. How are we to get the House in this short time to have the give and take that will be necessary if we are to make any sensible progress? To hurry this Bill will mean a waste of an enormous; amount of time by His Majesty's subjects. To cut four or five hours here, will mean endless days and expense in the Law Courts. That is my argumens for giving more time. I know these discussions are wearisome, but what are we sent here for? Not hurriedly to pass through a mass of technical legislation, and say: "Thank Heaven for the judges; they will put it right." To do that, is to bring Parliament into contempt and to evade the duties put upon us. We are here to see that, when you have a machinery Bill, every Clause shall be perfectly clear at any rate. A very small amount of vagueness in an Act of this kind is very much worse than a mistaken Cause. To hurry through this Bill, dealing with so many complications, is to do a very great harm to
municipal authorities, the trade and commerce of the country, and individual citizens. I cannot imagine more unprincipled conduct on the part of any Government than, for the sake of ease, for the sake of getting a thing through, for the sake of their own holidays, to grudge the time necessary to hammer out these difficult terms. I would like to set an examination paper to the Members of the House. I am sure most Members would not understand the Amendments on the Paper. There are many Amendments on the Paper of an important character backed by great business names of which Members would be puzzled to give an explanation. I could run through, if I were allowed, a good many——

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that there is a Standing Order against tedious repetition. I should be sorry to have to apply it.

Miss LAWRENCE: With the utmost deference to the Chair, and the utmost desire to keep strictly to order, how can I possibly argue why we need more time if I may neither give instances nor detail the inconveniences which result? I do not see how it is possible for anybody to speak rationally in this way——

Mr. SPEAKER: I have called the hon. Member to order once. I cannot keep on calling her to order over and over again.

Miss LAWRENCE: I only wanted to say that Members opposite did not know what "vessel" meant under the Merchant Shipping Act. I was referring to this question in general terms in order to conform to the wish that fell from the Chair. If I may mention new ones, I will do so. There are plenty of new ones. May I mention the details?

Mr. SPEAKER: All I want the hon. Member to do is to keep the Rules of Order.

Miss LAWRENCE: I want to keep the Rules of Order, but I do desire to give the House instances of how much time we want to deal rationally with this Bill. I have mentioned that the docks and the railways are very much troubled with regard to the difficulties in which they will be placed in making their assessments. In Clause 3 we have whole troops
of business people and different businesses desirous of putting their points of view, all of the most varied and detailed character. How can we compress into one hour the claims of the domestic workshops, the retail shops and the warehouses? How can we in the short space of a day do justice to these multifarious and various trades, which in various ways find themselves affected? There is a question which may well keep the House for a week. If you de-rate one man and not his competitor, you throw great hardship and confusion into——

Mr. SPEAKER: I have warned the hon. Member, and, as she still continues to disobey my ruling, I must ask her to resume her seat.

Mr. PALING: It is strange that the Government in the generosity of their hearts should find it possible to give another half a day. I protest against the system of limiting time in this respect, in view of the fact that there is plenty of time in the course of the 12 months to discuss these things. It is shameful that the time on a Bill of such importance should be cut down for the sake of allowing the Government to keep to its time table, and to enable its Members to go on their holidays. I appreciate holidays as much as anybody, but I do not think any Member wants a time table if it means that this Bill will be shoved through in any shape or form. In the discussions which we have had up to the present, we have not had any too much information on anything. On most occasions when information has been asked for, we have not been able to get it, and now we are going to be cut down to 3½ days on one of the most important Bills that has come before us. The Prime Minister, in moving the Motion, stated very kindly that he had in mind the hard work that Members of Parliament had done, and the fact that we wanted to get away for our holidays. That is very kind of him. He has a reputation of being a kindly man with some people, and if we have a long holiday, we shall be able to appreciate it. I was wondering when he was talking about holidays, and recommending it for himself and the Members of the House, whether he had a change of heart and that he was going to recommend as much leisure for the people. When we were discussing the miners, he increased their hours from seven to eight. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order for the hon. Member to discuss the condition of the miners.

Mr. PALING: I am using that as an illustration that the Prime Minister is not prepared to give to the miners what he is prepared to take for himself and for the Members of this House. It is no use Members protesting. I appreciated the speech of the Prime Minister in regard to holidays and leisure time for Members of the House and for himself, but I wish he would apply the same principle to other people outside, who work much harder than we do. When it comes to a question of their leisure, he makes himself responsible for increasing their hours of labour. We have been discussing for years the question of a 48–hours week. We cut our time down to six or seven months in the year, and we have four or five months off, but when we have a Bill of this importance which wants time to discuss it, sooner than cut our leisure time down by a single day, the Prime Minister stops Members discussing the Bill in detail, as they ought to, and gives only 3½ days for it. When people in the country, who have neither leisure time nor means to enjoy it because of their low wages, want a 48–hours week, as recommended by Members belonging to his own Government, he will do nothing. We have gone on for years and we can get nothing from him in that respect. I take this opportunity of making this protest against cutting down, the time for the discussion of this Bill. I want long holidays and plenty of leisure, and the money to enjoy it, but I hope the Prime Minister will have the goodness of heart to give to other people what we are prepared to take for ourselves.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I want to add my appeal to what has been said to the Minister to withdraw his Amendment, and accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) and of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) to extend the time to five days. Not so much because I want to speak on the Bill, as because I want to hear the Minister—and it is very necessary that I should hear him—on what I regard as the most important part of the Bill. I do not think that it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention that very important parts of the Bill should be passed
over without discussion, but I want to draw his attention to Sub-section (2) of Clause 4, which will never be reached. Our experience of this House tells us that seven hours is not sufficient to cover the whole of the provisions in Clause 3 and to get on to Clause 4. Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman that an important proposal of this kind
for the purpose of determining in what proportions an industrial hereditament is occupied and used for industrial purposes and for other purposes
should be passed over without discussion? He made a very interesting suggestion to the Opposition leaders that some arrangement might be made with regard to the exact allocation of the time and, of course, it was understood that difficulties were in the way. I would like to have seen it arranged, but it implies that if the Opposition agree to the allocation of time, they also agree to the allotment of time. That is the difficulty in the way. It is the function of the Government to allot the time of the House in such a manner as to insure that every important item and every one of the provisions should at least be discussed. I do not often bother the House; I listen a great deal more than I speak, and I am extremely anxious to hear the Minister's views on this Sub-section. I am aware that the speeches in this House do not enter into the law of the country, but it is essential that we should know what the Minister's view is upon such important matters as are contained in the Sub-section I have mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In line 10, leave out the word "Clauses," and insert instead thereof the word "Clause."

Leave out from "9," in line 19, to the word "conclusion," in line 21, inclusive.

In line 21, insert the words:
Fourth-Clause 10, New Clauses,
Schedules, and any
other matter necessary
to bring the Commitee
stage to a conclusion 7.30.
—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Ordered,

"That the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading of the Rating
and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:

(1) Committee Stage.

Four allotted day6 shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following Table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that Table.


TABLE I.—(Committee Stage.)


Allotted Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.




P.M.


First
Clause 2
7.30


Clauses 3 and 4
—


Second
Clauses 3 and 4
7.30


Clauses 5 to 8
—


Third
Clauses 5 to 8
7.30


Clause 9
10.30


Fourth
Clause 10, New Clauses, Schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion
7.30

(2) Report Stage and Third Reading.

Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage and Third Reading, and the proceedings on each of those allotted days shall be those shown in the second column of the following Table; and those proceedings, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the third column of that Table.


TABLE II.—(Report Stage and Third Reading.)


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.




P.M.


First
New Clauses and Clauses 1 and 2
7.30


Clauses 3 and 4
10.30


Second
Rest of Bill and any other matter necessary to bring the Report Stage to a conclusion
7.30



Third Reading
11.0

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After this Order comes into operation, any day other than a Friday after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered
an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules; and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orderes, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On an allotted day no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded
789
under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of.

Orders of the Day — RABBITS BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Captain WATERHOUSE: Before this Bill is read the Third time I want to say one or two things not only about this particular Measure but about the general trend of legislation of which it is an example. I do not feel there is any call for the Rabbits Bill from the farming community as a whole. There certainly is a call for it from the Farmers' Union, but the Farmers' Union is a trade union and therefore, in common with the Trade Union movement as a whole, owes its present liberties and privileges largely to judicial decisions. What I object to so much about this Bill and about other Bills which have been introduced in the last few years is that we are taking away from the Courts a certain power and placing it in the hands of local authorities. Under this Bill a county council can enter upon a piece of land, can appoint either themselves or somebody else to kill the rabbits, and charge up against the owner the cost of the killing. It seems to me that the tenant, the occupier, of land to-day has quite sufficient safeguards through the County Court if his property is being damaged. If his crops are being damaged by rabbits he has his redress. Why is it necessary to put the county councils in this position? Under the Agricultural Holdings Act county councils have certain powers of intervention between a landlord and a tenant. It is within the knowledge of many hon. Members that the agricultural committees in many counties are absolutely inoperative, that it is quite impossible to get them to act against a tenant for bad husbandry; and I do not believe they will act under this particular Bill. The whole trend of the Bill is wrong. In this country we have the best, the cheapest and the speediest judiciary system in the world, and I humbly enter my protest against putting the functions of Courts on to a committee of a county council.

Sir G. HOHLER: I wish to express a measure of agreement with my hon. Friend. The real difficulty is that in this country damage done by rabbits is not actionable, though it is actionable in Scotland. In Committee I proposed an Amendment to make it actionable here, but I was told that it was outside the scope of the Bill. I think that in a large measure this Bill will be perfectly useless. I agree with what has been said about county councils not being the appropriate body to determine questions under this Bill, and I think that by an appeal from the county council to the County Court one could easily hold up proceedings for so long that no relief was obtainable until all the damage had been done and the shooting tenant was gone. I regret that the Bill has not taken the form of assimilating the law in this country to the law as it is in Scotland. As I have said, damage by rabbits is an actionable wrong there, and the law works admirably. There has been no difficulty about it. I think when the farmers get this Bill they will say, "We have really got nothing." I deeply regret that the Government did not take the bold course, and the only proper course, of making this damage actionable at law.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: The House ought to take note of the fact that this Bill is very different from the Bill which the Minister introduced in another place last year. I feel the Bill will need to be stiffened, and I hope the Minister wants to stiffen it. It deals with an evil which, from the purely agricultural point of view, is of very grave importance. It amazes the foreigner that we should allow millions' worth of valuable produce to be destroyed by vermin in this manner. The evil arises from a feature of agricultural life which is peculiar to this country. Owing to the industrial wealth of this country the owning of land for pleasure prevails to an abnormal degree, and leads to an extraordinary indifference to waste. In the opinion of hon. Members on these benches, the Bill ought to have given some public authority such as a county council the power to act in cases where land is obviously being wasted. Instead of that, the operations of the Bill are limited to cases where any particular farmer brings a complaint before a county council against his neighbour. In the
first place it assumes a readiness on the part of the farmer to make himself obnoxious to his neighbour, and anyone familiar with country life knows that in such a social atmosphere unneighbourliness is very difficult to practise. Secondly, the Bill assumes that the farmer is perfectly free to take action it he is prepared to face a charge of being unneighbourly. It must be obvious that on many estates where the owner wants to keep up a good head of rabbits he will not encourage his tenants to take action. He will make it known that tenants will be looked upon coldly if they do take advantage of the powers under this Act. Thirdly, the Bill, contrary to the Minister's Bill last year, assumes that injury from rabbits is only a matter of private interest to the farmer, whereas we feel very strongly that it ought to be regarded as a matter of public interest as well, from the point of view of the public wealth.
Land owning is a trust, a very peculiar kind of trust, which may easily be perverted, and trusteeship ought to be regarded as a matter of great public importance. I cannot help thinking that the Minister absolutely agrees with what I am saying on the merits of the Bill, but the fact is that the Bill which was introduced in another place was largely turned down by a Committee representative of another place, and very largely composed of landowners, who, of course, were against the idea of interference of this kind. This Bill, therefore, embodies a distinct surrender on a point of principle, but in the main it is to the good, and I should not desire to vote against it, though I shall be glad of an opportunity to stiffen the Bill. Certainly the Bill is too feeble. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb) introduced a Bill two or three years ago which was a very much stiffer Bill. Not only did he want the county council to have the power to act independently of the complaint of any particular farmer, but I do not think he permitted the right of appeal against a decision—a procedure which involves long delay and perhaps tends to disuse of the powers of the Bill. In my judgment the rights of appeal in this Bill are excessive. I feel that the Bill is weak because it cannot be brought into operation unless one farmer is prepared to "tell on" another, and that a farmer may resist
action on the ground that the damage has not yet taken place, whereas it may be absolutely necessary that action should be taken to put down the rabbits before the serious damage has occurred. If a man waits, say, until February before setting the county council in motion he will have lost his opportunity, though it may be much later than that before actual damage can be proved.
We have to choose between two points of view, there is the old-fashioned country point of view in which the comfort of the farmer is a very important factor, because nobody wants to be unneighbourly to anybody else, and the other point of view in which we must consider also justice to the public welfare and to the labourers. The labourer, though he may not be vocal on his own account, is very much concerned to see that good farming is practised, because by negligent farming and an excess of rabbits the standard of a farm will be lowered, and that means a reduction in the staff of men and a reduced ability to pay good wages. In this country we exact from agriculture a very heavy toll on account of rabbits, and on account of sport in some other directions. In our view the toll is too great. We feel the Minister has surrendered on a point of principle and should have made his Bill a very much stronger Bill than he has done.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Bill has been criticised this evening from two points of view. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir G. Hohler) thinks we ought to have given legal redress in preference to leaving the damage done by rabbits on a neighbour's land to be dealt with by the county council. That solution was carefully considered by a Select Committee in another place last year, and in our opinion overwhelmingly strong evidence was produced against it, not only on account of the fact that people would hesitate to take their neighbours to a court of law, but also because we want to prevent loss, and do not want merely to pay compensation for food unnecessarily wasted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) thought the Bill was too weak. He pointed out that we have changed some of its provisions since last year. We recognise that a great deal of anxiety was paused by
the machinery which we produced last year, and we think we have provided a reasonable compromise by allowing a power of appeal in suitable cases. We do not think that recourse to a Law Court is in all cases a satisfactory method, because of the difficulties of proof and evidence and the delay which will take place; and we think that the powers of appeal which have been given are as far as we can reasonably go in that direction. It is certainly not necessary to alter the Bill in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk and to put into the hands of the county council powers of entering upon land and exterminating rabbits when no complaint has been made. I do not believe that agriculturists generally demand any such drastic measures. I think they generally recognise that rabbits are, under proper control, quite useful, and that there is no reason why people should not be allowed to have them on their land if they do not hurt their neighbours.

Mr. BUXTON: If the powers are not necessary, may I ask why the Minister put that in his Bill last year?

Mr. GUINNESS: We did not propose that the County Council should come in and exterminate rabbits when no complaint was made.

Mr. BUXTON: But he did not propose that the complaint must be by the farmer concerned; under the Bill of last year it might be a complaint by an inspector who reported to the county council.

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, but the Bill of last year certainly did not go as far as the proposal now made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk goes, as I understand it. We deliberately restricted the power of making complaints to those who were affected. We think that it would be undesirable to allow the busybody to make complaints to the council in the way which has been suggested in previous Bills. We believe that the willingness of the injured farmer to make a complaint is a very reasonable test as to the reality and importance of the complaint.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment which I select is the second Amendment standing in the name of the Tight hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton).

Mr. BUXTON: May I ask whether you find that the first Amendment standing in my name—in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert a new Sub-section:
(2) The Regulations made under this Act by the Minister shall include a provision requiring that a packing station used for grading and marking any article shall be a co-operative association representing the producers of the article.
is out of order?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a question of whether it is in order or not, but that it is one which I do not select.

CLAUSE 4.—(Cold and chemical storage of eggs.)

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, to leave out the Clause.
I bow to your ruling, Sir, though I hope that you may perhaps be willing to give the House a reason why it is not desirable that the point raised by the Amendment which you passed over should be considered so that the House might have an opportunity of putting it into the Bill or not putting it into the Bill.
On this Amendment, I would urge that Clause 4 is not a satisfactory Clause because it includes the Minister' proposal that the word "British" should be inserted in the place where he has inserted it. This controversy deals with a complicated point, and with a matter upon which, whatever course is taken, strong objections may be raised, and difficulties will arise; but I want to urge that, the aim of the Bill being to give the British producer the best chance, it is desirable to tell the consumer——

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Rouse counted, and 40 Members being present——

Mr. BUXTON: On this knotty point of the insertion of the word "British," I wish to urge that if British goods and foreign goods are taken from the same store and released for sale and only the British eggs are marked "cold stored," that situation will not be tolerated by the opinion of producers, who will feel that in that way some stigma is being put on their article of sale, and the Minister will land the Ministry in more trouble if the matter is left as he has now arranged, it. There is distinct objection on the part of a very powerful section of producers on this question. The greatest egg-producing county in England is Lancashire, and in Lancashire, as those who have been discussing this Bill in Standing Committee know very well, a conference was lately called by the Ministry, and it would not agree to the scheme if the compulsory marking of British cold-stored eggs as "British cold-stored" was included in it, while leaving out the description "foreign cold-stored," and a resolution to that effect was carried by 16 votes to 8. It seems to me that the Minister would do well to follow the advice of the biggest egg-producing county in England. It is quite possible that the dislike of cold-storage as evidenced by a mark on the egg may increase, and you will then have a serious grievance felt by a large section and, indeed, by British producers in general.
Arguments are very easily given on the other side. It may be frankly admitted that the matter is nicely balanced, but the balance appears to me to be in favour of the course which the Minister has rejected, but which he did adopt in his first draft of the Bill. It is said that the quality of the eggs will prove itself and that the consumer will act accordingly—that quality will prevail; but surely that is no argument in the case of a Bill like this, which assumes that the test of quality is not enough, and that you want to give the consumer something more than the test of his own æsthetic preference for one kind of egg or another. There is, of course, the interest of the cold-storage world, which will be affected if the word "British" is removed; and if foreign cold-stored eggs had to be marked as "cold-stored," they would then be cold-stored to an increasing extent abroad; and
there is an argument in that. But when you are dealing with an agricultural proposal, ought you not to put the interests of the producer—of English agriculture—before the interests of the cold-storage company? Foreign eggs will, under the provisions of the Bill, sell in winter because they will not be marked "cold-stored." Therefore, if the word "British" is not dropped, would it not be better to drop this provision for cold-storage marking altogether?

Mr. GUINNESS: Although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) has moved to leave out the whole of Clause 4, he has also dealt with an alternative suggestion, that the Bill should be reinstated as it was originally introduced, by leaving out the word "British," and therefore making it necessary that all eggs which come out of a British cold store, whether foreign or British, should have a special mark put upon them. I daresay it is convenient that both these alternatives should be discussed together. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the subject is rather complicated, but he did not give to the House any explanation which could have been understood by any who, unlike ourselves, had not been on the Standing Committee, so perhaps I had better explain in a few words what the issue really is. Clause 4, which imposes certain requirements as to the marking of eggs when they come out of cold store, will take effect in respect of this marking only when an order is in force imposing the obligation, under the Merchandise Marks Act, of marking all foreign eggs before they are marketed in this country. The Standing Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act, when they considered the first application in favour of the marking of eggs, suggested that the time was not yet ripe. They clearly anticipated that a marking order would at some date be brought into force; and these are their words in paragraph 19 of their Report:
During the interval which must elapse while progress is being made…attention might be given also to the problem presented by preserved and cold-stored eggs. It has been suggested in the course of our inquiry that the need of distinguishing between preserved and fresh eggs is not less than that of differentiating imported from home-produced eggs; and that, if a marking Order were made there would, in the absence of such a precaution, be a danger
of English preserved eggs being sold as 'new-laid,' and so damaging the home egg trade. This matter is, we think, not strictly within our province, but we can well believe that the home egg trade would be prejudiced by preserved eggs, whether of home or foreign origin, being passed off as 'English new-laid.'
8.0 p.m.
Clause 4 of the Bill was put in to deal with that recommendation of the Merchandise Marks Committee, in preparation, as they suggested, for the time when a Merchandise Marks Order against foreign eggs would be brought into operation; they recommended that steps should be taken to prevent preserved eggs, whether of home or foreign origin, being passed off as English new-laid eggs. The Clause, as originally introduced, attempted to go further; it attempted to impose an obligation to distinguish between the foreign fresh egg and the foreign cold-stored egg, and it was only on the eve of the matter being considered in Committee that the cold store interests pointed out how absolutely ineffective this proposal would be for the purpose of securing the marking of foreign cold-stored eggs. Nine-tenths of the eggs which come from abroad, and are sold after cold storage, have been stored abroad, and no orders that we can make under this Bill or in accordance with any recommendation by the Merchandise Marks Standing Committee can secure for us the marking of foreign cold-stored eggs as such. All that we can do is to secure that the foreign egg is marked. We have got no method of control over the cold storage abroad. It would not be within the power of any foreign country, in its own interest, to impose a distinctive mark on their cold-stored eggs, in the interests of the reputation of their fresh eggs, because many of these eggs come from large cold-storage depots at Hamburg and elsewhere and are of other origin than of the country where they are cold-stored. If, for instance, Poland said that they were going to impose an order that no cold-stored eggs from Poland should be sent to England without being distinguished by a mark, they could not enforce it, because the eggs might go out of Poland as fresh eggs marked "Polish," but nothing that the Polish Government could do could prevent the eggs going into cold-storage in Hamburg and coming into
this country merely with a mark of foreign origin. It would only mislead the consumer.
Even if we attempted to do it, the effect would be of only very short duration, because if there is anything in the nature of popular prejudice against cold-stored eggs, undoubtedly the foreigner would try to avoid his eggs being sold with that handicap, and the result would simply be that the whole of this storage of foreign eggs would be transferred from this country to some place outside our jurisdiction. When this was discussed in the Standing Committee, I had not had an opportunity of getting the considered opinion of the Poultry Advisory Committee about this particular point. Since the meeting of the Standing Committee the Poultry Advisory Committee have decided in favour of the Clause as it now slands by a majority of three to one. The National Farmers' Union have also recommended the Clause as it stands, and only last Tuesday the Central Chamber of Agriculture recommended that the Bill should be passed, and they specially supported Clause 4. It is quite true that in Lancashire there is objection taken to this particular provision, but I cannot help thinking that that is because they have not fully understood that the provision to impose the marking of foreign cold-stored eggs, as they come out of store in this country, would be quite inoperative for the purpose of securing real distinction between the foreign fresh and the foreign cold-stored eggs. The effect would not be to secure the marking of foreign cold-stored eggs as such, but would merely mean that, within six weeks of the Order coming into operation, not a single foreign egg would be cold-stored in this country and the whole trade would be transferred abroad. Under these conditions, I think the House would be ill-advised to amend the Clause, seeing that the industry concerned, with the admittedly important exception of the Lancashire branch of the National Farmers' Union, are in favour of the Clause, and I hope the House will leave it as it stands.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: On the Amendment to Clause 4, I want to say only a very few words. As far as the objects of the cold-storage of eggs are concerned the logical point of view must
be that which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. He knows that I do not like this Clause of the Bill. If I really wanted to defeat its object I should vote for the deletion of the word "British," because it is perfectly plain that the extreme difficulty which would arise in regard to the enormous quantity of foreign eggs would defeat the real object of the Clause. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that it is a reflection upon the expert advisers of the Ministers that it was only a few days before the Committee stage of the Bill that they were seized of the advice of the cold-storage authorities of the country as to what the real position is. Some of us who have been dealing with the question have been urging the Ministry that there would be difficulty in applying this kind of Order. It is rather humiliating for the Minister to find himself in the position in which he is now at this stage of the Bill. Apart from that, I do not propose to say anything further, because I cannot really logically vote for the exclusion of the word "British" simply to make the working of the Bill more chaotic. That would not be fair. When it is remembered that there are probably between 1,500,000,000 and 2,000,000,000 eggs of this type imported, only a small proportion of which are put in cold storage in this country, it makes the position quite clear. As regards the other aspect of the question, on the general terms of Clause 4, I have something else to say. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture announced, not through his own mouth to-day, but in answer to a question apparently dictated by him, that he now has the Report of the second inquiry held by the Standing Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act with regard to "the marking of eggs. The whole of this Clause 4 depends upon the Report of that Committee.

Mr. GUINNESS: Clause 4 only takes effect when a Merchandise Marks Order is applied to foreign eggs. The Report does not really affect the principle of this Clause, but the date on which that Order will be made.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have said what is right in words that are not approved by the right hon. Gentleman. The Clause
cannot operate until an Order in Council is made as a result of the Report of the Committee to which I have referred. The whole Clause is inoperative until you have received, and, if it is favourable, acted upon the Report of the Committee. What is the Report of that Committee? The House is entitled to know. The House is asked to pass blindly Clause 4 when the information as to the Committee's Report is in the hands of the Minister and when the Report is in the-hands of the printers. Why should we pass this Clause until we know exactly what the Report of the Committee is?

Mr. GUINNESS: I absolutely fail to see why you should not, because the Clause only takes effect when a marking Order is brought into operation.

Mr. ALEXANDER: This is the second inquiry held by this Committee within the period of a few months. The Committee reported against the marking of imported eggs. They were then apparently reappointed for a second inquiry by the Minister, I should say with a view to making it possible to have the Order recommended by the Minister. I think that is the only construction that we can put upon the circumstances. When I recall the interchange of views between the Chairman of the Committee and myself as to procedure; when I recall the things that were said in Committee and the interpretation put on the matter by the Chairman, and when I read the Clause in the Bill, while the Committee is still sitting, that the Clause is to be contingent upon the making of an Order, I cannot help thinking that, shall I say, there was a mild kind of plot that the first decision of the Committee was to be upset and that the House would be asked to pass a Clause in a Bill—for the first time in the history of our legislation—which would be regarded as something of an inducement to a Committee sitting at that time. I regard that as profoundly unsatisfactory and as a breach of the privileges of the House. I think it is unfair to the House to ask them to pass this Clause until they know the exact terms of the Report and the details of the recommendations of the second Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman has probably told the Cabinet already whether he is to introduce a draft Order in Council to
the House. If that is the position, we are entitled to know the facts before we pass Clause 4. I believe that the trade generally, as well as the consumers, have been very badly treated by the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. The trade have great cause to complain, and ultimately the consumers will have cause to complain. While we should have no objection to admitting the claim of the trade to improve marking conditions for home-produced eggs, the ultimate result must be that the consumer will have to get as good an egg as he can at as cheap a price as he can. The consumer is not to be helped from an economic point of view by a Clause of this kind. I feel strongly that we ought to divide against this Clause unless we can get from the right hon. Gentleman a categorical statement of what the findings of the Committee on the second inquiry were, what their specific recommendations to the Government were, and what the proposals of the Government are as a result of the recommendations.

Mr. SEXTON: I am very much concerned on this question. I happen to be an amateur poultry farmer myself, and, on occasions when a change of breed is required to prevent inbreeding, I find it necessary to introduce new blood. Now, as home new-laid eggs for breeding purposes are very costly, I have tried experiments with imported eggs with some measure of success with my incubator. The question therefore goes much further than the mere marking of eggs for consumption as such. A further difficulty arises which as a law-abiding citizen I am anxious to avoid. I want to know if I am producing aliens by my method under a subterfuge, and if it will be necessary for me to take out naturalisation papers for those already incubated. I am inspired to make this point by the very courageous and eloquent desire expressed last night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the undesirability of continuing a system in our national sporting life of incubating what to his mind is a very undesirable element on our racecourses. Under these circumstances what am I to do? It seems to me that one of two alternatives must be adopted by me—either I must take out naturalisation papers or deport the alien fowl to the source of their origin. Perhaps the Minister for Agriculture or the
Home Secretary will guide me in this matter.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think the Minister of Agriculture might very well accede to the request of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) and tell us something about the latest report dealing with the question of marking eggs. This question was raised on the Second Heading of the Bill. I think our recent experiences in connection with the Merchandise Marks Act and the wireless and oil mergers at least justify hon. Members on these benches in suspecting moves of this description. Any Bill which is an invitation to a Committee to give a decision in a certain way is simply toying with the House, and it is a method which ought never to be adopted if we are to legislate on right lines and steer clear of the charge of partiality or of serving individual interests. Clause 4 is; wholly dependent upon an affirmative reply from the Committee which has been dealing with the marking of imported eggs. If the Minister of Agriculture has this information at his disposal, and if he is willing to impart that information to the House in a direct manner and will tell the House the result of that Report, I think I can assure him on behalf of hon. Members on these benches that, while the principle embodied in the Clause and the intentions of the Bill as a whole would not be objected to, that would determine whether or not we are willing to allow the Clause to be carried without a division. It is the suspicion lurking behind this Clause which may be used as an instrument of torture to obtain a decision which could not have been obtained in a right and legitimate way that causes us to doubt whether we shall go into the Division Lobby or not against the Clause. The Minister of Agriculture can ease our minds and clear up the situation if he likes. Surely, he can let it be understood that Clause 4 will only be operative if the decision of the Committee dealing with the marking of eggs is in the affirmative. If that decision is in the negative, I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that we should be committing no crime if we eliminated the Clause, and left nothing in the Bill to act as a guiding influence to any future Committee that might have to deal with the problem.
If the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the decision of the Committee and he will let the House know what it is, then we shall be willing to allow the Clause to go through if the reply is in the affirmative. If the reply is in the negative, we think that Clause 4 should be eliminated. If we merely pass a Clause to act as a guiding influence to a certain section of this House or to people beyond these four walls, I think we shall be passing legislation of an unprecedented character and that will be a very unwise thing to do. The Minister of Agriculture has several Bills on the stocks which he hopes to pass into law in a short time. We have no desire to obstruct or prevent the right hon. Gentleman obtaining the maximum results of his efforts during his period of office, but unless he is willing to satisfy the Opposition that he is justified in taking the step he proposes, he will have to concede to the Opposition that they are entitled not only to obstruct but to prevent if possible the placing on the Statute Book of a Clause which is a direct invitation to use such influence as I have already alluded to. The right hon. Gentleman will not be breaking the Rules of the House or giving away any secrets if he tells us what is the decision of the Committee. If that decision is in print, somebody knows at the present time what it is, and the least we can ask is that we shall have that information, because on the production of that information rests our decision as to whether we shall vote for this Clause remaining in the Bill.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I have received some communications from a number of Lancashire egg producers, and I want to express their view. I would like to make it clear that there is something more in their view than appears from what has been stated in this Debate. Lancashire produces one-sixth of the total eggs produced in this country, and therefore the view of Lancashire producers is deserving of consideration. I should not be at all surprised if what Lancashire thinks to-day on this question the rest of the country will think to-morrow, a saying which has so often proved true in regard to other matters. I think there is a good deal in what the Minister of Agriculture has said about the effect of this
Clause. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, if you do not put in the word "British," it might have the effect of immediately driving away some eggs that are of foreign origin. Those eggs would be cold-stored in the country of origin instead of in this country.
After the passing of the Merchandise Marks Act, there will be a very great temptation to egg dealers in this country to purchase their eggs from the Irish Free State or some country near at hand rather than purchase eggs produced in this country, because eggs produced in this country would have to be marked as cold-stored, but eggs might be bought from, say, the Irish Free State, and stored in this country, and in that case they could be released from cold storage without any such marking. I hope that hon. Members will try to put themselves in the position of producers of eggs in Lancashire. Let us say that there is a large cold store in our county, and that some large egg dealer is in the habit of buying 100,000 cases of eggs produced in Lancashire and 100,000 produced in the Irish Free State or in Denmark. What is the temptation to that man if this Bill be passed with Clause 4 as it is now framed? The temptation to him is to buy his 200,000 cases of eggs from the Irish Free State or from Denmark, and to buy none at all from Lancashire, because, when those eggs are once released from cold storage, they will be released marked "Danish" or "Irish Free State," while British eggs will have to be marked "Cold-stored." The Lancashire egg producers respectfully suggest that that is putting them in a position in which they ought not to be put.
The Lancashire egg producers have no passion for this Bill. Already they grade their eggs, and it seems to me that, if they have to comply with the conditions of this Bill in regard to marking, it will not mean that they will get a better price for their eggs than they do now. In all probability the cost of marketing will be a little more than it is at present, and, therefore, the other Clauses of the Bill will not bring them any benefit. On the other hand, if Clause 4 be allowed to pass as it is now drafted, it may be a great disadvantage to the producers in Lancashire. I appeal to the Minister to delete the word "British," and let us have the Clause as it was originally
drafted. When I say that I speak for Lancashire, I would remind hon. Members that——

Mr. BLUNDELL: On a point of Order. May I ask if the hon. Member is addressing himself to this Amendment or the next one?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I was about to remark that the particular point as to the deletion of the word "British" comes as a separate Amendment.

Mr. TOMLINSON: I beg pardon, Sir; I was under the impression that we were discussing the two Amendments together, but I must have misunderstood.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: When a Motion is made to omit a Clause, it is not out of order to allude to Amendments to the Clause, but it is out of order to discuss them in detail.

Mr. TOMLINSON: Then, with your permission, Sir, I will reserve another sentence or two that I should have liked to have spoken until the appropriate Amendment is under discussion.

Mr. GUINNESS: I interpose for a moment because I think that the House is somewhat under a misapprehension, not as to the point about the word "British," but as to the bearing of the Merchandise Marks Committee's Report, which is in draft, on the proposals in this Clause. It has been suggested by two speakers that Clause 4 is an invitation to the Merchandise Marks Committee to recommend a marking Order. That is an absolute travesty of the position. This Clause does not invite the Merchandise Marks Committee to do anything; on the contrary, it is the result of an invitation from the Merchandise Marks Committee, in their last Report, to deal with this particular point during the interval which must elapse while progress is being made on the two lines which will enable them at some future date to recommend a marking Order. That is the exact term of their recommendation—that we should deal with it——

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why this Clause is dependent upon a successful application to the Merchandise Marks Committee to agree to the marking of imported eggs? This only becomes operative when certain other things have been done. Does
it not seem clear that the very fact of the presence of this Clause in the BUS is an invitation to the Committee dealing with the situation to give an affirmative reply?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think so at all, seeing that the Committee invited us to deal with it in advance of the situation arising in which they could recommend the marking of imported eggs. The hon. Member asks why we should wait for that time. The reason is obvious. If we imposed this Order, and said that cold-stored British eggs were to be marked as such, while foreign eggs could come in with no mark of origin at all, that would obviously entail a great injustice on the British producer. [Interruption.] When, under the machinery of the Merchandise Marks Act, a recommendation is made, and if the Government-follow that recommendation, an Order can be laid and can take effect without further legislation, and we have been directly invited by this Standing Committee to deal in advance with this particular point, in order to facilitate their arriving at a satisfactory solution of this problem.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I would remind the light hon. Gentleman that, if he makes an Order, that Order will still be subject to discussion in this House.

Mr. GUINNESS: Quite so, but it takes effect without legislation, and this particular point which the Standing Committee raised could not be dealt with in an Order, but would have to be dealt with by legislation. It is really absurd to say that we are inviting the Standing Committee to do anything when we are really carrying out a suggestion which that Standing Committee made to us, and which will ensure, when a marking Order takes effect, that cold-stored eggs canot be passed off as "British new laid." If people buy foreign eggs, they will be marked as such, and people will take the risk with their eyes open of getting cold-stored eggs. There will be no distinction between the foreign cold-stored egg and the foreign fresh egg, but, anyhow, it will not be possible for either to masquerade as a British egg. I think that, perhaps, the shortest answer to the suggestion that we are inviting the Committee to come to some decision is that an invitation of that kind would be too
late, because the Committee, as has been pointed out already, have come to their decision, and their Report is already in draft. [Interruption.] It is suggested that we ought to leave out this Clause because, if it be left in, it is an invitation; but it cannot be an invitation at this stage, because the Committee have already reported. I cannot paraphrase or anticipate their Report, because I am obliged by Statute to lay the Report before each House of Parliament, and it would be most improper for me to give a partial disclosure of a Command Paper. It would be most unfair to the Committee, and it would not be a fair presentment of the Report, for me to paraphrase or attempt to summarise a rather complicated matter of this kind without laying Papers. The Report will be laid as soon as it is ready. It is not only the Ministry of Agriculture that is concerned; we have to consult the other Departments——

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what date the Report will be published?

Mr. GUINNESS: I really cannot say at all. The procedure was that, as soon as the Report came in, it had to be submitted to the other Departments: I received it for them. We got their decision that it should be published. There is no obligation in all cases to publish. The wording is:
Before any proceedings shall be taken on any Report made by the Committee such Report shall be published.
We had to consult the other Departments, and the normal course was taken. It was impossible to have the Report printed for publication until we had their consent, and now that that consent has been received, the Report is in the hands of the printers and I hope will be published in a very few days.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The position, as I understand it now, whatever it may have been at the date of the introduction of the Bill, is that the Committee on Eggs made, as their principal recommendation, that the Order-in-Council should only be made when sufficient improve roents had been made in the grading, collecting, packing and marking of eggs. Whether that grading is sufficiently far advanced will, I take it, be decided by
the Minister before he puts the Order on the Table, and that Order is then, at the option of the Opposition, subject to discussion and vote in the House, so that, whatever the Minister may ultimately do, nothing is finally decided by the passing of the Bill. But while I recognise the difficulty my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) has put forward, I am, and always have been, an unrepentant opponent of the adulteration of foodstuffs, and I believe there is no commodity consumed by the working classes which is more subject to fraudulent misrepresentation in the retail sale room than the domestic egg. We import almost 300,000,000 eggs per annum. Of these 18,000,000 come from China—in shell. I am not talking about liquid eggs at all. Is there a Member in the House who ever heard of an egg being exposed for sale in shell as a Chinese egg? Our wives and mothers and sisters go into shops and pay for Irish, Danish or British eggs and someone palms off Chinese eggs on to them. Apart from Chinese, 80,000,000 Egyptian eggs come into the country in shell every year, and Italian and Latvian eggs, eggs from all over the world, preserved Heaven knows how. These things are never consumed by the rich. They are palmed off on the poor and it is the poor who are plundered by this deliberate, wanton, fraudulent, misrepresentation.
Another evidence is that the difference in price as on 1st March last, between Polish and Irish eggs in shell was 3d. per dozen. Whoever heard of a woman going into a shop and asking for a Polish egg? These Polish eggs are sold in shell and passed off as something else upon the British consumer and, whatever else we do, surely we might devise efficient methods to stop fraudulent misrepresentation and to see to it that whatever the poor pay for they get, and one step which I hope will be taken as the result of this Bill will be to ensure that, by Order-in-Council or otherwise, efficient steps will be taken to prevent the continuance of this fraudulent misrepresentation. When we pass from eggs in shell to liquid eggs——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I dare say the hon. Member will prove the connection of his argument with the Clause but at the moment I do not see it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We had all this out in very great detail in the Committee. Clause 4 is really the crucial part of the Bill, apart from grading, and if it goes out, apart from grading, nothing else matters. While I quite appreciate that I ought not to wander into elaborate detail in these matters I wanted to put forward the view that the reason why I am exceedingly anxious that something in the nature of Clause 4 should be passed is that it is the only means I can conceive of whereby widespread fraudulent misrepresentation can be stopped. If you, Sir, rule very strictly——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I confess to a considerable degree of ignorance. On the face of it I should say that Clause 3 dealt with the marking of eggs. If the hon. Member can establish the connection of his argument I will not stop him.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Of course it is a rather complicated matter. As Clause 4 now stands, it is really only British cold-stored eggs that are to be marked. In the struggle between the cold storage interest and the producer of eggs the producer got the worst of it, and the Minister surrendered to the cold storage people, with the result that eggs preserved in foreign cold store will not be marked after the passage of the Bill.

Mr. GUINNESS: If British eggs are marked cold-stored, every foreign egg will be marked as of foreign origin.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We are now at the distinction of what is a cold-stored egg and a foreign egg. No one knows better than the Minister that Danish eggs command a higher price in the market because of their efficient grading, for one reason alone. What is the meaning of the principal recommendation under the Merchandise Marks Act? It is that this Order in Council should not be issued until there is an efficient grading of the home egg. For what reason? Because the best imported eggs obtain a better market in the United Kingdom than the average home-produced egg, the reason being because the producers of home eggs have never yet graded them efficiently. They are lumping eggs laid a week ago with eggs laid a month ago, lumping them in different sizes, and making very little attempt at efficient grading, and because the Danes have gone into a co-operative organisation for an efficient grading
system—I am sure the Minister will agree with this—the Danish egg commands a higher price in the British market, and rightly so. It is because of that that there is amply no point whatever in the interruption the Minister made. Personally, I have no criticism to offer to the comments made by my freinds about this Order in Council. It may be that the Minister has taken a left-handed way of putting his familiar protectionist ideas before this House, but as I understand the position he may only bring in his Order in Council if he is satisfied that there is a sufficient collection of eggs in this country to warrant it. If he is so satisfied, he may bring in an Order in Council, and after that it is subject to review and discussion and a Vote in this House if any section of Members desire it. That being so, I think that this House has sufficient protection against any illicit, undue or precipitate protectionist measures which the right hon. Gentleman may desire to foist upon the country.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out the word "British."
In spite of what the Minister said a few minutes ago, I still desire to urge, as strongly as I can, the point of view of the Lancashire egg producer, I interrupted the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Tomlinson) a short time ago because I feared that he was confusing the issue. The Lancashire egg producer does not object to Clause 4 if the word "British" is left out. I was anxious that there should be no misunderstanding as to the point on which both the hon. Member for Lancaster and myself agree, namely, that the Lancashire egg producer is perfectly satisfied with Clause 4 provided the word "British" is left out. What we say in Lancashire, being quite commonsense and hard-headed people, is, "Let us have the same rules for all, and we will take the risk of any injustice being done to Lord Vesty." Even if it is not possible to ensure that foreign cold-stored eggs are generally marked, let us, at any rate, ensure that foreign eggs, cold-stored in this country, are marked an cold-stored as well as British
eggs. I think the Minister in putting his argument before the House overlooked the fact that a good many countries where they make provision for the grading and marking of eggs, have also made provision for dealing with cold-stored eggs. I find in the Report on Egg Marketing of the Imperial Economic Committee which was issued last year, the statement:
It is worth noting that all countries which have introduced grading systems for fresh eggs by law, whether for internal trade or only for export purposes, have also prescribed by law separate descriptions and grades for cold-stored, and pickled or preserved eggs.
In the Ministry's own publication on egg-marketing which was published the year before, the following passage occurred:
It may be added that the stamping of cases with the words 'cold stored' or their equivalent, is already in force as regards cases of cold-stored eggs intended for export to this country from such countries as Northern Ireland, the Irish Free State, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Esthonia.
I agree that that is only the stamping of cases, but if those countries have got as far as ensuring that cases of cold-stored eggs are so marked, it is only asking them to go a little further by having the eggs themselves marked. I venture to think that no country such as Denmark, which has a high reputation and a well-deserved reputation for the quality of its produce in this country, is going to see its produce undermined by cold-stored Danish eggs being sold as Danish fresh eggs. When you consider the point from the angle of the British producer, these cold-stored eggs which will come into this country in the future, and are not marked as cold-stored, but marked as foreign, or with the country of origin, will not compete with British fresh eggs but will compete with the fresh eggs of the country from which they come. If Danish cold-stored eggs are sold here as fresh they will not have any material effect on the British fresh egg, but they will have a material effect on the Danish fresh egg. If the Danes are already marking eggs in anticipation of the Order in Council, and have already regulations for marking cases of cold-stored eggs, I venture to think that they will go further and see that their cold stored eggs are marked before they come into this country.
Again, it is very well known that no produce can hold its own in the very particular English market unless it attains a very high standard. All these countries which export eggs in large quantities to this country and pride themselves on the reputation of their eggs, will be forced in their own interests to ensure that their cold-stored eggs are marked as cold-stored eggs, or otherwise the reputation of their fresh eggs will be undermined. I follow the Minister's point that a large number of eggs are collected at depots such as Hamburg or Antwerp, and that there they are purchased as fresh eggs, and will come over here without any mark, and that we cannot ensure their being marked. The right hon. Gentleman also pointed out that the producer will not be able to ensure their being marked either. I wonder whether he is quite sure about that, and whether it will not prove to be the fact that if the Polish or the Esthonian producer finds that his fresh eggs are losing their reputation in this country, because they are being associated with cold-stored eggs from Hamburg, he will not see that the eggs which go into cold-storage are marked before leaving his country. At any rate, I venture to think that he will have a very good try.
I fear that the only result of this Clause, if the word "British" is included, will be to cause a certain stigma on British cold-stored eggs which will not affect the cold-stored eggs of foreign countries. I do think that the Minister might well consider whether he would not, at any rate, give the British producer the chance of having some advantage in this matter, instead of giving him the certainty of being at a disadvantage as far as cold-stored eggs are concerned. I would venture to press him on this point, and to remind him that with the great increase of the production of eggs which you can see from one end of the country to the other, the British cold-stored egg will be a very important factor in the prosperity of the poultry industry. Although the Bill as it stands will safeguard the British fresh egg, if by doing so it reduces the value of the British cold-stored egg, the egg producer may lose on the swings something, at any rate, of that which he gains on the roundabouts.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
From the farmer's point of view, we do not want to encourage the preservation of eggs. The question of the age of the preserved egg arises. It may be six months old, a year old or two years old. The public are quite unaware when they buy an egg which has been cold-stored, what the egg is. In regard to British eggs, we are trying our very best at the present time to grade them so that they can compete on better terms than in the past with the foreign egg. The cold-stored foreign egg comes into this country not to be sold to the public at a cheap rate during the time when eggs are dear, but to be sold at as high a price as the importer can obtain, owing to the fact that they are generally placed upon the market when eggs are at their dearest. The British public do not want preserved eggs; they do not want cold-stored eggs, they want fresh eggs, and we are trying in the farming industry, with the aid of this Bill, which will do a great deal and go a long way towards elucidating this problem of the British egg, to give the very best prospect of the British egg coming into its own. It has been said by one hon. Member that the Danish egg is a better egg and fetches a better price than the British egg. I deny that. Danish bacon may fetch as good a price, as ordinary British bacon, but it does not fetch as good a price as the very best British bacon, and the very best British egg fetches to-day on the market a better price than any imported egg.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I do not deny that.

Sir W. WAYLAND: The average British egg fetches just as good a price as the average Danish egg. The difference has been, up to the present, that the Danish egg has been better graded than the British egg. Now, the British farmer is awakening to the fact that if he is to get the best price, he must also grade his eggs. We are starting to do that, and this Bill will be a great help to us in enabling the British farmer to capture the egg market which at the present time is, undoubtedly, dominated by the foreign importer.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. GUINNESS: After the full explanation which I gave on the proposal to omit the Clause, I do rot think
it is necessary to cover the whole ground again. If there was any way of going further than the marking of foreign eggs, as such, if we could see any prospect, in addition, of being able to secure that there is a distinction between the foreign fresh and the foreign cold-stored egg, naturally we should be glad to make provision to do it, but no way has been suggested. The sole result of the Amendment now before the Committee would be that it would transfer the storage of these foreign eggs from this country to foreign countries, without helping the producer here in the very slightest. It would merely inflict an injury on the cold-storage industry. It is not, unfortunately, in the power of the foreigner to secure that his eggs are marked as cold-stored. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Blundell) mentioned the case of Esthonia. Esthonia cannot control Esthonian eggs once they have passed out of her possession. They are marked as Esthonian eggs when they are sold; they leave Esthonia in bulk, but Esthonia has no means of preventing those eggs going into cold storage. Therefore, the hon. Member must not imagine that it is within our power to control what foreign eggs go into cold storage outside our jurisdiction. This Clause sets out to see that just its no foreign egg can be mistaken for a British egg, after the, marking Order takes effect, so the British fresh egg cannot be injured in its reputation by a cold stored egg being substituted for it. It is not in our power to go any further, and in the circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. BUXTON: We on these Benches regard the general policy of this Bill as of the highest value. We back any sound plan for introducing grading into this country, because we have laid special emphasis on the fact that it is in the direction of marketing that our agriculture is most behindhand. It is a very important step that the Government of this country is taking and I hope that this is an indication of a very great reform in the agricultural world. We of the Labour party in our report published
two years ago, very strongly urged the adoption of this policy of standardisation. We said:
The standardisation of the quality and the accurate grading of agricultural produce have immensely improved the markets of the Dominions and other countries. Wherever these results cannot be achieved by other means, the State must provide the organisation to secure the adoption of grading and the standardisation of produce on the market.
In our short term of office we took the first step towards facilitating such a policy by initiating the investigations into marketing which have had so much publicity in the form of the orange books. Anything which helps forward a general policy of grading and marketing we most cordially support. I do wish, however, that the Minister could have seen his way to associate this Measure in a more marked degree with co-operative methods. Abroad, grading goes in general with co-operative plans. It should not pass without notice that the Bill does not give any preference to cooperative methods, yet it contemplates new agencies scattered afresh all over the country. I wish the Minister could seize the opportunity of pushing what is the ideal method in connection with trading. We none of us want the dealer to steal a march on the co-operative method. It has been assumed that the new agencies will largely take a cooperative form. I read in the "Times" of the 11th of June an agricultural correspondence saying:
Some doubt exists as to the means by which accredited country packers (virtually collecting centres) will be created in all parts of the country. It is assumed that local societies will be formed on a co-operative basis.
Even if things should march less quickly it would be better if the Minister could see his way to give special encouragement to the system of co-operative agencies, because agencies in some form will have to be started all over the country. This is the psychological moment to get producers into the habit of associated action, which is essential to their success in catching up the foreign competitor. You have collectors all over the country acting as buyers for stores like Sainsbury's and this has led to the organising of collecting and packing stations already. At the moment it is an inadequate organisation. There is no
reason why these stations should not now, as they have to conform to new rules and better methods, take on a cooperative form. The Ministry of Agriculture's Journal for May contained an account of poultry schemes and it gave the elaborate arrangements which will be necessary for collecting stations. Some of them, for instance are that a minimum quantity of eggs will be required, say a minimum limit of 10,000 eggs per week, single counting, grading by weight, non-returnable empties and inspection of every kind. Why should it not be completed by co-operative methods in associated action?
The Minister of Agriculture may perhaps have an opportunity in connection with the scheme for lending money to co-operative enterprises to help some of the larger centralised collecting stations. I trust he will find some way of encouraging co-operation. It has been pointed out that the advantages of the new plan will be two-fold. The advantage is not chiefly in the fact that you will meet the buyers' needs better, but that you will lead the grower to standardise his produce, and good production is the chief aim. The success of Danish goods is not due in the main to better marketing but to better production, but marketing was the cause which produced the effect. It is not usual to allude by name to a civil servant, but so much publicity has attached to the name of Mr. Street of the Ministry of Agriculture that everyone must recognise the great value of his activities in this connection; and publicity has been an essential part of the propaganda. The organising of conferences and demonstrations, and making better known through the Orange Book what is done abroad, has now led to a situation in which I am glad to find the Minister has found it possible to act. In America you have something similar to the proposals of the Bill. You have a plan which is permissive and optional, and it is amazing that in the United States they now grade over 75 per cent. of their agricultural products in general, including 35 different kinds of fruit and vegetables. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what products other than eggs he has in view. We know that he is thinking of fruit——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: On the Third Reading of a Bill it is only in order to discuss what is in the Bill, not what should be in the Bill.

Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture, within your ruling, will be able to indicate briefly his general idea of the intention of the Bill. I have only to say how cordially we agree with the general plan of the Bill. It will stimulate the farmer and the producer to grow things which will be worthy, shall I say, of the preference which the Britisher usually gives to British goods and it will give satisfaction in many ways to a vast number of people. I am glad, in spite of certain defects in the Bill, to be able to support it most warmly and I hope that in a very short time it will lead to a greatly increased consumption of home-produced goods.

Mr. LAMB: The time for discussing the machinery of this Bill has now passed and it only remains for us to say whether we give approval or otherwise to the Bill as a whole. On behalf of the producers of eggs and agricultural produce I should like to say that we approve the Bill generally and are hoping that it will be passed as soon as possible in order to enable us to take advantage of the opportunities, which we believe it will give to us in the marketing of our produce.

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords].

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [22nd May], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD:

To leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I understand that the Attorney-General desires to speak on this Bill, and I do not want to intervene between the House and the hon. and learned Gentleman. I presume my right to move the Amendment will not be prejudiced?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The right hon. Member will not be prejudiced in any way

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): It is probably convenient that I should say a word or two about the Bill because when the Second Reading was moved it was moved without any observations as to its character. The Bill, I am afraid, does not permit of any detailed exposition without the risk of wearying the House, which is the last thing I desire to do, but probably I shall have to trespass for some little time on the attention of hon. Members. This is one of those kind of Bills which is required to correct mistakes which have been found to have occurred in legislation concerning legal matters and to fill up gaps which have unfortunately been found to exist in our legal administration. There are five parts of the Bill, and the various parts include a number of matters which are unconnected for the most part with each other. If I may deal with Part V first, it is sufficient to say that it contains 14 or 15 Amendments, some of which are consequential upon earlier Amendments in the Bill, sometimes merely corrections of mistakes which have been made in previous Acts. If any explanation is desired of these minor Amendments in Part V, which are really of no importance at all except that they correct the smaller mistakes to which I have referred, it will be probably more convenient to give an explanation in Committee.
I now pass to Part I of the Bill. The five Clauses contained in that part complete the reorganisation of the probate registries of this country, which was begun by the Administration of Justice Act, that Measure having been consolidated in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925. The reform which the present Bill will bring about, will complete what, I think, may be regarded as a very happy combination—indeed, the happiest of all combinations, namely, efficiency and economy. The reform is based on the recommendations of a Committee appointed in 1922 by Lord Birkenhead, then Lord Chancellor. The Committee was presided over by Mr. Justice Tomlin, as he now is. They reported that there were 40 district probate registries in this country, some of them in places of great historic interest but places which unfortunately had ceased to be as convenient
for the public as they once were; that some of the registries therefore had very little work to do, that the clerical staffs were, in many cases, underpaid, while, in some cases, the registrars were overpaid having regard to the duties which they have to discharge. The proposal of the Committee was to remodel the distribution of the registries, by establishing 11 registry groups in various parts of the country with the necessary sub-registries, and that part of the reorganisation has been carried out in the Act to which I have referred.
The present Bill makes what may be described as consequential alterations in the law providing for the recruitment, status, pay and, in due course, retirement of the existing staffs. I can assure the House that these arrangements have been made with the concurrence of the parties concerned. We have been careful to take counsel with the associations representing the various members of the staff, that is to say, the registrars and the clerks and the present proposals are based upon the arrangements which have thus been made. I may add that the provisions are analogous to and follow closely on the provisions made concerning the County Courts staffs and embodied in the County Courts Act, 1924, which hon. Members opposite were responsible for passing into law. Part II of the Bill in general deals with certain defects in the existing law which are of no particular interest to the public. Attention has been called from time to time by His Majesty's Judges to these defects and Part II of the Bill simply gathers them together and deals with them. The Clauses which constitute this part of the Bill are for the most part, merely machinery provisions to remove existing doubts as to the present practice in the ordering of the business of the Courts. I am sure if I were to detain the House with a discussion of the reasons for desiring, for instance, that the position shall be quite clear as regards the jurisdiction of the different parts of the High Court of Justice I should not contribute to the edification of hon. Members, and I am afraid I might be guilty of wearying them more than I must inevitably do in any case.
Clause 11 is in a slightly different category from those to which I have just referred.
It is partly consequential on the reforms in Part I of the Bill, but it goes a little further. It empowers the President of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor, to give directions from time to time as to the place of deposit of original wills and other documents. With the passage of time, and with the accumulation of documents which it is necessary to preserve, such directions as that are necessary and the President will in future be empowered to give directions so that these documents may be preserved at the place deemed to be most convenient for those persons who have occasion to refer to them. Part III of the Bill deals with a matter which has been a subject of grave consideration, and I am bound to say also of great anxiety on the part of those whose duty it has been to consider it. It deals with the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Clause 13 contains provisions which it was hoped and believed would add to the efficiency of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in connection with the hearing of Indian appeals. It is with very great regret that it has been found necessary to state to-day—and I merely repeat the statement—that Clause 13 will not be proceeded with in this Bill. I regret it very much indeed and I believe that it is a loss which every hon. Member, who is aware of the circumstances connected with the hearing of Indian appeals would regret if the facts were fully known to him.
It is unnecessary for me to spend time on the matter. It has been decided to drop this Clause in order to secure the provisions of the rest of the Bill. We are not prepared to risk the loss of the Bill, having regard to the difficulty of finding time for it, in order to include the provisions of Clause 13, important though these are. The rest of the Bill is so necessary and so urgent that we thought it right to jettison Clause 13 in order to secure the passage of the Bill, and I hope that any hon. Member who has thought it right to take objection to Clause 13, will regard that as a substantial effort to secure to the public the advantages which the other parts of the Bill will confer. I say no more about Clause 13 except to repeat as solemnly as I can an expression of the great regret which I feel and which others will
feel that this effort—I was going to say modest effort—to increase the efficiency of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cannot be carried into effect in this Bill. I hope an opportunity will be found to re-introduce the provisions, possibly in an improved form, if I may use that expression, at a very early date.
There only remains Part IV of the Bill, which contains miscellaneous; provisions as to matters connected with the administration of justice. One of these Clauses confers an added dignity, which hon. Members from Lancashire will appreciate, on the office of Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster. The added dignity will be more appreciated when it is realised that it is conferred without any increase of expense. The Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster has, up to the present time, been free, if he so pleased, even to be a Member of this House. His position in that respect has not been akin to the position of a Judge of the High Court, but it is an office of great dignity and importance. The holder of it tries cases which are certainly not less important than many of the cases tried in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. It has been thought fit to confer upon him a higher status, with, of course, such limitations as exist in the case of a person who is unable to become a Member of this House, and I am sure no objection will be taken to that Clause. Clause 18 deals with a matter which is quite distinct and separate in itself, and which I am sure all Members of the House will appreciate, and that is the conferring on fathers of the rights which have already been conferred on mothers in connection with the guardianship of infants. We may regard this Clause as a modest addition to the legislation necessary for removing sex disqualification.

Mr. BATEY: Do not pass over Clause 17.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member would like me to say a word about Clause 17. The main object of this Clause is to promote an administrative economy in the Department of the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court. At the present time the Accountant-General holds a number of
separate funds in trust for various charitable and ecclesiastical purposes. These funds for the most part are moneys which have been paid into Court under the Land Clauses Act as compensation for lands which have been compulsorily acquired. There are a large number of such funds. They are small in amount, and the interest on the funds is paid over in a very large number of cases, numbering over 1,000, to the incumbents for whom the funds are held in trust in connection with their benefices. There are, in addition, a number of funds which are held for charities, and the administration of hose funds in the Accountant-General's office obviously causes a considerable amount of work of a very detailed character for the Accountant-General, who is not really the proper officer.
It has been thought that those funds, concerned as they are with the duties of the Charity Commissioners and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, should be entrusted to those bodies. They have powers which they can more conveniently exercise than the Accountant-General. They are the bodies charged with the duties which concern the administration of those funds. There is no change whatever in the incidence attaching to those funds. It is merely a question of the transfer to the convenient persons of the legal possession of the funds with the consequent duty of administering them for the persons for whom they are held on trust.
I have attempted, without going into great detail, and without attempting to describe the various Clauses except to the extern; only of matters of interest to the House to show the varied and important nature, as far as it goes, of this Bill, and I hope that hon. Members will now assist this Bill which has had many vicissitudes, which has come from another place, and which has made many attempts 10 pass through the narrow portals of this House, and I hope on this occasion it will be successful, because in truth and in fact it does embody a number of reforms, some of which have been overdue, and many of them perhaps may be regarded as unimportant, but as many persons whose duty it is to engage in the administration of the law are aware, the defects which this Bill is intended to cure do cause inconvenience,
and in many cases expense. I recommend the Bill to the House as a small instalment of the legislation, of which we have had a good many examples in recent years, to make the administration of justice more effective, and I believe also more economical.

Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD: I regret that the Attorney-General has withdrawn Clause 13, and I hope it will be possible at a later stage to keep it in the Bill. From my point of view, and I think I shall be able to show from the point of view of this House and the Empire, Clause 13, which deals with augmenting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, is far and away the most important part of this Bill. As to most of the Bill, it deals with local matters, all excellent in themselves and few of them leading to any serious controversy, but in Clause 13 there is an attempt—a belated attempt—to increase the number of Law Lords in the Judicial Committee to meet the ever-growing flow of litigation from overseas, and especially from the Empire of India. The Attorney-General has given no good reason for dropping this Clause, and, as far as I know, there is nobody in the House who would like to weaken the prestige of the Judicial Committee, which is the Supreme Tribunal of the Empire and to which Court—and to which Supreme Court alone—every subject of the King throughout the whole Empire may appeal.
This Court, if I may remind the House, is the successor of the Court established by William the Conqueror and presided over by the Kings of England until the days of James I. It is the one Court—and I speak with considerable feeling as being one who was born in one of the Dominions—to which every subject of the Crown has looked since the commencement of the British Empire, and does look now with confidence. This Bill intended in Clause 13 to increase the number of Law Lords, restricting their choice to India. It is hardly necessary to inform hon. Members that the present number of Law Lords is six, and all these enjoy a salary of £6,000—not at all a large salary, having regard to the vital importance of their work and the sacrifice which they made in private practices to take the positions they now honourably hold. I
hope no hon. Member opposite will run away with the idea that this question swings on a matter of the salary. It is of such transcendent importance to strengthen this Judicial Committee in the interests of the whole Empire, that a mere matter of £1,000 ought not to prejudice anyone about the question. My complaint of the Clause as it stands is the fact that these Judges were to be selected from one part of the Empire only. That is an odious discrimination against the rest of the Empire. At the moment the Judges are selected from England, Ireland and Scotland. My point is that this is an Imperial Court, and the only Imperial Court; indeed, it is the only body left in these Islands the decisions of which go throughout the length and breadth of the British Empire. The decisions of the House of Commons no longer carry throughout the Empire, but the decisions of this Court, which is the most tangible link of Empire next to the Crown itself, go throughout the length and breadth of the British Empire. I say, therefore, that the selection of members of this Tribunal should not be restricted to India. It may be necessary to choose two men of legal or judicial status in India to augment the Court, but as soon as you begin to restrict your area of choice, you raise questionings throughout the Dominions and other parts of the Empire that need never be raised.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Have we ever had an Indian Judge in this country?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly, we have already had distinguished Indian jurists in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That has been accepted. One reason why I welcome Clause 13 is that it intends to choose from the Empire an Indian, and it is from India that most of the cases to this great Court come, but my point is that we should not limit the choice to any part of the Empire. It may be necessary to choose some distinguished Australian, some distinguished Canadian, or, in years to come, some great lawyer from Jamaica. If you have a supreme Tribunal of the Empire, you should not restrict your area of choice. The second point to which I would draw attention on Clause 13 as it stands, is that we are to pay these new Judges smaller salaries than the members of the Judicial Committee who are now called Law Lords,
and their salary is made dependent, as far as half of it is concerned, upon the possibility of a grant from the Indian Legislature. If you have a Court in which there are Judges with equal responsibility, but paid different salaries, and some of them are dependent upon what may be the political, or, at any rate, the transient passions of a legislature in the Far East, it is humiliating the members of the Tribunal who are thus paid, and weakens the prestige of the whole Court. I am opposed to that, and every Member of the House will appreciate the position of a Judge from India who may actually have to hear a case in which the Legislature of India is a party. He would be in a humiliating position of having to realise that his judicial decision may be a ground of criticism against paying his salary.
The strength of the Supreme Tribunal of this Empire is in the fact that the Judges are selected by the Prime Minister of England, naturally acting on the advice of those best able to advise him, like the Lord Chancellor, or the Attorney-General, or other great legal luminaries, and the salaries are paid by this House. The Court sits in Downing Street. My point is that you must either strengthen this Court, or the people of the Dominions, and possibly of other parts of the Empire, will not be so willing to come to it as they have been in times gone by. My noble and learned Friend, Lord Haldane, who commands the respect of every Member of this House, as he does of all Judges of the Empire, described the position in the other House as a scandal. It is a scandal because there are too few Judges to hear the appeals. Some of our Colonial litigants come thousands of miles, and spend thousands of pounds, and in some cases tens of thousands of pounds, to come to this Supreme Court, and they often find the Court manned not by the Law Lords paid by this House, but by most respected, but too often elderly Judges, who have retired from active life on the Bench, and who are beseecbed to come in to make a Court to hear these cases. The Colonial litigant is no dullard, and he sees at once that he is not getting the full benefit of the Judicial Committee when the Court is constituted, as it frequently is, in the way I have described.
I would submit to the whole House that here is one of the few cases in which we can stand together in a great Imperial matter, because it concerns not the people of these islands, except the Free State of Ireland, but the humblest subject of the Crown throughout the whole Empire. It is the only Court to which he can go. It is the Court which, for hundreds of years has administered justice, and whose decisions have been loyally carried out in every part of the British Empire. When we have the Attorney-General of this Government coming to the House and dropping from this Bill a Clause which has taken years to bring to its present state, although I think that it is hopelessly inadequate, as he himself admits, it is not quite far, and it will give a bad impression throughout the Empire, which for years has been waiting for a strengthening of this Court. I remember the late Lord Chancellor, my noble Friend Lord Cave, deploring year after year that he could not strengthen this Supreme Tribunal of the Empire, and I especially appeal to hon. Members opposite who may think that the salary of £6,000 is too large——

Mr. BUCHANAN: Far too large.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I appeal to the hon. Member to remember that it is not a question of salary, but a question of whether you want every member of this Empire to have a Court in England to which he can appeal, and be sure of a hearing by men of high position in the legal and judicial world, whose decisions are never questioned. That is the real question, and I hope the Attorney-General will be able to convince the House that this is a pressing and an urgent matter. Speaking, as I know, the feeling of many representatives from overseas, I hope this Clause will be reinstated and strengthened and that the number of Judges of the Supreme Tribunal of the Empire will be increased, and be made worthy of its great past, and able to continue to earn the confidence of the overseas Dominions.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman move his Amendment?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: After what the Attorney-General says, I do not think that it is any use to move.

Mr. BATEY: I am surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, for I find on the Order Paper a Motion in his name to reject the Bill, and that would have meant rejecting Clause 13 with which he is in favour. I am glad the Attorney-General has dropped Clause 13; otherwise we should have fought the Bill harder. We object to members of the Privy Council being paid a salary of £6,000 a year, and, after five years' service being entitled to a pension of £1,000 a year. I represent the miners who, after 50 years' service, are fortunate if they obtain £26 a year pension. I consider that one man is as good as another. It might be argued that a miner cannot be a Judge, but you can equally well argue that a Judge cannot be a miner, on would not be a miner. As long as we have an opportunity in this House, we shall oppose one man after five years' service being paid £1,000 a year pension, while another man, after 50 years' service is luckly to get £26 a year pension. I am glad, therefore, that the Attorney-General has saved us the trouble of fighting that Clause. While this Bill is entitled "Administration of Justice" it is difficult to find anything dealing with the administration of justice in it. The first 12 Clauses deal with district Probate Registry Courts.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The first five Clauses.

Mr. BATEY: The Attorney-General said there were 40 district probate registry offices and that they are going to be reduced to 11 district offices, with sub-offices. Will he tell us which offices it is intended to close?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It may be for the hon. Member's convenience if I explain that the reduction of the number of registries has already been effected—three Sessions ago, in 1925. These Clauses merely provide for the necessary status on retirement, pensions, and so forth of the staff, consequent upon the alterations that have already been made.

Mr. BATEY: I take it the offices have not yet been closed, and no doubt it will be possible for the Attorney-General to tell us which he proposes to close. I notice that in these Clauses we deal with redundant registrars and under two
headings, those who have received certificates and those who have not received certificates. In the matter of pensions, registrars who have received certificates are dealt with differently from those who have not. In the case of registrars who have received certificates it says that their pensions shall be
the amount of the difference between the capitalised value of that annual allowance and the capitalised value of two-thirds of the annual salary on which the said annual allowance is computed.…or the amount of the annual salary of the registrar at the date of his retirement;
Are we to understand that those registrars who have received certificates may be retired with, as pension, the amount of the annual salary at the date of their retirement? If so, I would like to know what the amount of the pension is likely to be. In the next Clause we deal with the uncertificated registrars. In that case the Bill says:
If the registrar is one in whose case a certificate has not been so issued, the Treasury may grant to him by way of compensation such gratuity, not exceeding twice the amount of the salary received by him during his last year of employment.
He is going to be retired, it may be, on twice his salary. That is not a bad prospect. I would like the Attorney-General when he is making inquiries to ascertain how much that is going to be.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Member will continue his observations, I will listen to them while obtaining the information.

Mr. BATEY: I come now to the question of clerks, and how much they are to receive as pensions. The Bill says:
Where a person who was immediately before the second day of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, employed as a clerk in a district probate registry is required by reason only of his having attained any age to retire from service as such a clerk, the Treasury may, if he has been required to devote his whole time to employment as such a clerk and if he had attained the age of fifty-five years before the eighteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, grant to him by way of compensation such gratuity, not exceeding twice the amount of the salary received by him during his last year of employment, as may seem to them just.
Clerks who may be only 55 years of age are to be retired on double their salary. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, the gratuity is going to be double the amount
of their salary. I wish to know what sum that will be. I notice that, in the case of clerks who are retained, it is the intention to make them civil servants. What is the object in forcing the clerks to be civil servants? We have a recollection of how civil servants were dealt with under the Trade Disputes Act. Is the object of the Government in forcing these clerks to be civil servants to bring them under that Act and prevent them from joining a trade union?

Mr. WITHERS: The Attorney-General, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, did not deal with Clause 16. I do not know whether that has been withdrawn or not, but if it has not, I should like to draw attention to it. It introduces a new principle into our law. Hitherto I have always understood that Courts in England have refused to collect revenue debts of any countries abroad. It may be quite a proper thing to do it in this ease, but it is a great departure. We decide here to collect the revenue debts of Colonies and Dominions of the Crown who give us reciprocal treatment. If the Attorney-General is going to deal with this Bill again, I would very much like to hear his views upon this matter, because it is very important that this principle should be carefully considered and certainly not extended to foreign countries.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I rise for the purpose of joining with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Walthamstow (Sir H. Greenwood) in his regret that Clause 13 of this Bill has been withdrawn instead of being retained, enlarged and extended. There have been days when we have been extremely fortunate—indeed, I think we have been extremely fortunate all along—in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but, at the same time, everybody who is familiar with the administration of justice in this Empire, knows that for some time now there has been very considerable dissatisfaction in our Overseas Dominions as to the manning of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at the present time. It is quite true that within comparatively recent times there has been a certain amount of strengthening of the Judicial Committee, but, taking it right through, there is no doubt
that there is considerable feeling and considerable desire in the Overseas Dominions that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be more representative of distinguished judicial opinion throughout the Empire.
When one is dealing with that I think one may be very dissatisfied indeed to see the principle upon which Clause 13 was based. I do not think it is worthy of a great Empire such as ours that those distinguished Judges who are appointed from overseas should be paid otherwise than by the Imperial Government. It is not in accordance with the dignity of our Empire that we should be seeking to man the greatest Court of Appeal in our Empire at the expense of our overseas Dominions; and as this Clause is apparently about to me withdrawn, I do hope that the Government will give it their attention rather in the direction of expanding it, so that it may provide an opportunity of appointing distinguished jurists from Australia, from South Africa, from Canada and (from other parts of the Dominions, so that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council may be recognised as a great Imperial Tribunal representative of the greatest and most distinguished Judges of the whole of the Empire, and that it will be done at the expense of the Imperial Government, and that we shall not seek to put any part of the expense upon our overseas Dominions.
I cannot help making one reference 10 the speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), who seemed to think that you can judge the economics of these matters in the extraordinarily small way in which he discussed them. One can only say that if his remarks expressed the attitude of his party to what should be the most distinguished judicial tribunal of this Empire, then that is an attitude entirely unworthy of the representatives of any party in this House, and I venture to say that if the same parallels which he attempted to use with regard to the Imperial judiciary were used with regard to positions in trade unions, there would be very few trade union leaders. No one knows that better than the right hon. and hon. Members who sit upon the benches opposite.
10.0 p.m.
I pass from that, because when you are dealing with a matter such as the
provision of an adequate Court of Appeal for this Empire, you have to consider matters other than mere finance. You have to consider the provision of a Tribunal to which the whole Empire will look with confidence. You can, in my opinion, provide that Tribunal only if you make it a rule to draw to that Tribunal the best men of the judiciary of the whole Empire; and if you do that it will be a Tribunal to which the whole Empire will look and to whose decisions the Empire will bow with confidence.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: The Bill which is now before us contains some matters which, I think, are, or might be, the subject of dispute, and some which are not. As regards the most contentious matters, Clauses 13 and 14, which deal with the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I understand that those Clauses are not going to be proceeded with.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Clause 13 is not going to be proceeded with.

Sir H. SLESSER: In those circumstances, I do not say that it is a waste of time, but it seems to me that it is not very profitable, to discuss a Clause which we already know is never going to be law. Therefore, whether it be wise or unwise to leave that Clause out of the Bill, I do not think it is very much good discussing how a Clause may be improved which very soon will not exist at all. I cannot help, however, pointing out to the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord)—although in his utterances he is not very pleasant to some of my friends behind me—that if he loves this Clause, his criticism should be directed to the Attorney-General who has withdrawn it. We are not responsible for the withdrawal of this Clause but the Government are, and both he and the right hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Sir H. Greenwood), if they have a quarrel about the withdrawal of the Clause, have it with the Government.
I wish to call the attention of the Attorney-General, however, to a number of matters which, I submit, might very well have found their way into the parts of this Bill which deal generally with law reform. There is a particular matter of most urgent importance to those of us
who sit on this side of the House, and who are interested particularly in the extension of State undertakings. I refer to the right of the subject to bring proceedings against the Crown. We have had a Committee sitting for many years on the question of proceedings against the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General—to mention an important Member of the Committee—I myself—to mention one of the less important Members—and persons more important than either of us, such as the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, have devoted a great deal of time to the consideration of that matter. The Committee was appointed originally in 1921, and six years later, in 1927, a very complete Measure, drawn by Sir Thomas Willes Chitty and Sir Graham Harrison, was embodied in the report of that Committee. It would have dealt with these matters in what, I think, the whole Committee agreed would have been a very satisfactory manner. The House must know that at the present time it is still not possible to sue the Crown or any Government Department except by going through a very cumbrous and archaic procedure known as the Petition of Right, and when we are dealing, as we are to-day, with so many ordinary contracts made by Government Departments with subjects of various kinds, or, for the matter of that, with claims by workmen who work for Government Departments for wages, then there is no reason whatever why a subject in suing on a contract or an agreement with the Crown should not be put in precisely the same position as if he were suing another subject. That Committee which I have mentioned recommended in substance that the old and archaic procedure of the Petition of Bight should be swept away, and that the Crown should be amenable to exactly the same proceedings as a subject is.
Then it dealt also with the question of costs. I will not weary the House with details of the way in which the Crown can escape liability for costs. It was recommended that the Crown should be placed substantially in the same position as the subject in this matter. It is almost impossible, when the subject sues the Crown, for him to get access to those documents which are material to the case. While safeguarding those papers which have to be made confidential in the interests
of the State, the Committee proposed a scheme whereby when any person sues the Crown under ordinary contract, the subject should be in exactly the same position as against the Crown as he is when he is suing any other person. The whole of that report is omitted from this Measure; the whole Report has been ignored. Surely, when persons as eminent as the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Bolls and Law Officers and ex-Law Officers and many other eminent persons, have given time and consideration to solving these problems, the Government should not ignore their recommendations.
The same observations are true of a Report which resulted from a Committee presided over by Mr. Justice MacKinnon on the subject of arbitration. That Report was made in 1927, and it recommended important alterations in the law relating to arbitration, that arbitration should be more expeditious and that the arbitrator should be compelled to publish his award within a reasonable time; and it dealt generally with deficiencies in arbitration. That Committee included the present Solicitor-General. There is no mention of the work of that Committee in this Bill. I think it is a pity that law reform should lag behind in this way, and it is not encouraging to those eminent persons who give their time in proposing reforms of the law that, when we are presented with this Bill, there is no recognition of the work that they have done.
I come to a third point. I am profoundly disappointed that a proposal which, I understood, was to be embodied in this Bill, and which was certainly adumbrated by the late Lord Chancellor Lord Cave has disappeared—a proposal which would have done away with the necessity for coming to this House from time to time for a Resolution to appoint new Judges. I think that proposal was originally made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). If he were here, I think he would agree that the present practice is very undesirable. It means that, when the Judges fall below a certain number, and it is necessary to increase their number, Resolutions have to be put down in this House and long desultory discussions on judicial subjects
are carried on by Members some of whom are informed and some who are not informed. That matter is not dealt with here. A proposal was made that the number of Judges should be fixed at a certain definite number without going through the form of a Resolution in Parliament, but that has not been dealt with in this Bill. I hope next year we shall have another Administration of Justice Bill which will recognise some of these matters.
I think the matters which are in this Bill are useful and valuable, and I support the Bill. My only criticism is that so many other matters have been left out. I do not want to speak about the question of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think the best thing is that the whole matter should be taken back and reconsidered, and possibly some agreement may be arrived at between the parties. In regard to Clause 16. As I understand it, the object of the Clause is to set at rest any doubt on the matter of whether a Dominion or a Colony is a foreign country. Clause 16 treats the Dominions and the Colonies for the purpose of recovery of these debts as an integral part of the British Empire and not as foreign countries, and from that point of view the Clause seems to me to be unobjectionable and useful. Finally I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) that the provisions dealing with the Clerks in the Probate Registry seemed to me to be identical with the provisions for which the Labour Government were responsible in the County Courts Act of 1924. I cannot lend myself, therefore, to the view that proposals for which I was myself partly responsible are incorrect. I think this Clause improves distinctly the position of the Clerks in the Registries and makes them more secure. There is only one other matter to which I would wish to refer. I do not think that anybody else has referred to the fact that practically the whole of this Bill is the work of the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave. Lord Cave during his term of office nearly every year did something to improve our legal system. I think we ought to recognise that almost the last thing which the late Lord Chancellor did was to draw up this particular Measure, and I think that ought to be recognised.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I rise to express my regret that the Government have intimated that they do not intend to proceed with that part of the Bill dealing with the Judcial Committee of the Privy Council. This makes the third year in which the Government have dropped this proposal. I am sure if hon. Members fully realised what the tribunal known as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is they would allow this proposal to go through without any delay. The Judcial Committee of the Privy Council is a tribunal which may be regarded as the greatest tribunal the world has ever seen. Whether you regard it from the point of view of the area over which it exercises jurisdiction, or the population which is subject to its jurisdiction, there has never been a tribunal like it in the whole world. It is a tribunal which has done more for the benefit of the Empire than any other body in the Empire.
Having got this wonderful tribunal which has done such great service to the Empire, this country has treated it in a scandalous way. It is housed in a room which really is unsuitable for even a county court. At the present moment there is an appeal from India being conducted before this tribunal in which a large number of persons are concerned, and I am sure that the size of the room in which these proceedings are taking place is somewhat less than the Black Hole of Calcutta, and the atmosphere is quite as bad as when that place was occupied by the prisoners. If what I have described is the nature of the tribunal surely this country can afford to provide an adequate staff of Judges, because the importance of this tribunal is beyond all question. Here we have a modest proposal to add two more Judges, and because the Opposition has objected the Government have consented to withdraw their proposal. I trust that for the benefit of the country and for the sake of the Empire the Government will reconsider that decision.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) devoted a considerable portion of his remarks to matters which are not in the Bill and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) has devoted the whole of his remarks to something that is going to be struck out
of the Bill. I wish to say a word or two with reference to the Clauses which are to be taken out of the Bill. I should like to congratulate the Attorney-General on the fact that they are to be dropped, and I think it is a pity that they were ever included in the Bill. In a Bill of miscellaneous provisions, dealing with all sorts of matters, some small and some great, in our courts at home, I do not think that provisions for altering the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should have been included.
I should much prefer to see a separate Bill brought in to deal with the whole question of the constitution of the Judicial Committee. As we know, the work that is thrown upon that great tribunal to-day is more than it can manage. Additions will have to be made to it, and like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Walthamstow (Sir H. Greenwood), I should not like to see the area of choice limited. We have to remember that the area over which that tribunal exercises jurisdiction is far wider than India, though as a matter of fact a large proportion of the work that is dealt with by the Judges in the Privy Council does come from India. At the same time, however, it comes from the Dominions overseas, and from our Colonies and Dependencies in East and West Africa and, indeed, all over the world. Therefore, when we are considering the improvement of the constitution of that tribunal, I think we should deal with it in a Bill by itself. It is a matter which requires the undivided attention of this House, and, when such a Bill is brought before the House, I hope that no limitation will be introduced into it to restrict in any way the area of choice of the Judges who will sit upon it.

Mr. PILCHER: The announcement made by the Attorney-General of the withdrawal of Part III of this Bill has been such a blow to those of us who know anything about the Indian end of this Privy Council work that I feel that I cannot forbear to add my appeal to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Walthamstow (Sir H. Greenwood) and others, that this Clause should be put back if that be by any means possible. I have several distinct reasons for desiring that this proposal should go
through at the earliest possible moment. The first is the fact that this proposal, as my right hon. Friend probably well knows, is only one-half of a very important compromise which was arrived at with very great difficulty by one of the most distinguished of the line of Viceroys who have ruled over India during the past 40 or 50 years. This proposal was Lord Reading's own proposal, arrived at in 1924 as a result of consultation with the Secretary of State for India. It was based on Lord Heading's knowledge both of the state of affairs in India and of the congestion prevailing here in the Privy Council in regard to Indian appeals.
The matter is urgent for this reason, that the state of affairs which made it possible for Lord Reading to arrive at that compromise is rapidly passing away. We are now in the penultimate Session of this Parliament. There can be but one more Session, and it must be a very crowded one; and when we come back—if we do come back—in the new Parliament, there will be a very different state of affairs prevailing in India. The very basis of this compromise will have to be re-created, if, indeed, that be possible, in India, and I very much doubt whether, in the new order, it will be possible again to arrive at such an arrangement as this. Over and above the fact that this is the result of a very difficult compromise, arranged by a Viceroy with unique authority in India, who enjoyed the unique confidence of Indians, I would plead that the present state of affairs does certain extremely grave injustices to India, injustices which we cannot afford, as Britishers, to allow to be perpetuated, and which we ought to remove as soon as we possibly can.
The first and most obvious, is the injustice done to Indian litigants, who come here in ever-growing numbers. Twenty or 30 years ago the number of appeals coming home from India was 25 or 30, but in the five years following the War the number rose to, I think, over 90, and I should not be at all surprised to hear that it is even higher at the present moment. The gravamen of the case from this end lies in the fact that appeals from India constitute 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the appeals coming from all over
the Empire to the Privy Council. There is the most appalling congestion. The Judicial Committee has itself descanted many times on the gravity of that congestion, and, surely, it is the duty of those in this country who value the tremendous position of the Privy Council, and realise what a great cement of Empire it is, to prevent the deterioration of the prestige of that great body.
Over and above the injustice done to Indian opinion by the present congestion, there is another injustice which will appeal to hon. Members on the Labour Benches One of the objects of Part III is precisely that to which one hon. Member has made allusion. It was desired to give Indian barristers, Judges and even pleaders a chance of coming home to the highest tribunal of the Empire. Even to-night we have had opposition to this part, based on the fact that the salary offered is higher than it ought to be. How do my hon. Friends imagine that a lawyer of great prestige in India, who must have been a Judge of one of the High Courts of India, will accept less than the salary mentioned? We live in a world of realities. The first thing is to do justice to Indian litigants and, as things are now, you certainly cannot get a competent Judge for less than the salary mentioned in Part III of this Bill. It is quite a common thing for a brief to be marked at 500 guineas. There is a rumour that in a great case now going on across the road, which will last till August, there are no fewer than eight silks engaged. In a single case the earnings of these distinguished men will run into the amount mentioned here. [Interruption.] We are not discussing whether it is a disgrace or not. We are discussing the congestion in regard to Indian litigation and whether we can give the Indian litigant the justice he is accustomed to associate with the British name and the British occupation of India. I should like to enforce my right hon. Friend's plea. I am certain that for the sake of our good name in India it is essential that this congestion should be corrected. We have now a unique opportunity created by Lord Reading. It is very doubtful whether we shall ever see this opportunity again, and I appeal to the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister to see that it is not lost.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I see there is mention of the Court of Session. Will the Attorney-General explain the exact relationship of the Clause to the law in Scotland, and what effect, if any, it has? Then there is the provision that a clerk shall be removable by the President of the Probate Division. Does than mean that he can be removed in the case of misdemeanour, and what are his exact rights if he is removed? Has he no opportunity such as any other civil servant has on his dismissal to request that his case be raised in this House? I would like to raise a small point in regard to Clause 19. I do not exactly know what is the new alteration of the law when it says:
Section one hundred and fifty-four of the County Courts Act, 1888 (which regulates the sale of goods taken in execution), shall be amended by inserting therein after the words 'put in possession by the bailiff' the words 'or may be safeguarded in such other manner as the high bailiff directs.'
I should be doing an injustice to the Government if I replied to the speech of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) who introduced matters far outside the scope of the Measure. I know perfectly well that I could follow him, but I have no desire to harass the Government. I want to say on the general issue that we have here the question of the appointment of a Judge who, it is suggested, should get £2,000 a year from this country and £2,000 from India. Some of us cannot understand the attitude of mind of Conservative Members who come here and object to adequate wages being paid to the miners, and yet will vote in favour of a salary of £4,000 a year to a Judge. Some of us think that the unemployed miners are as intelligent as a Judge, and that a miner is more necessary than a Judge. I congratulate the Attorney-General in dropping Clause 13. If he had not dropped Clause 13 he would not have got the Bill. We should have opposed it, but like a wise man, he swallowed the compromise. If you are going to deal with this important object, you should not deal with in a Bill relating to district probate registries. It is a big subject. If we are to have the whole question of Indian justice raised let us have it on a separate issue. Let us have it on a Bill definitely drawn up and properly thrashed out in this House.
I think that this Bill, with the omission of Clause 13, will bring about an improvement in the Courts of Justice, and, therefor, I do not intend to oppose it. I hope, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer these three questions, namely, in regard to Clause 3 and the question of an appeal by clerks who are dismissed, the point about Clause 16, and also the point about Clause 19 in their relation to the law of Scotland?

Mr. PALING: I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), have no desire to harass the Government. I was interested in the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoore (Mr. Batey), and also interested and rather amused at the superior attitude adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord). He referred to the comments made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor in regard to the compensation and gratuities to be paid under this Bill, and accused him of judging the economics of this matter in a small way. We have nothing to criticise in regard to the major portion of the Bill but, surely, when there are one or two matters to which we desire to call attention that is no reason for the attitude adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood. If we want information we have a right to it, whether on a small matter or a big matter, and I resent the superiority of tone adopted by the hon. and learned Member for Norwood, in making such a suggestion. I should like to ask the Attorney-General a few questions in regard to the Financial Memorandum and paragraphs (a) and (b) with respect to registrars. Paragraph (a) says:
If they are pensionable a special lumpsum addition to their normal compensation allowances
will be paid. Paragraph (b) provides that:
If they are unpensionable special retiring gratuities not exceeding twice the amount of their respective annual salaries
will be paid. Can the Attorney-General give us any idea what these amounts are, what the total will be and how many people will benefit? I should also like to draw attention to the paragraph relating to clerks, which states:
Under Clause 4 of the Bill those existing clerks who are too old to be made established Civil Servants will be called upon
to retire at ages varying from 65 to 70. In the case of clerks so retired it is proposed to increase the gratuities normally payable by an amount not exceeding 100 per cent.…
I should like to know the amount that will be paid in these cases. We have no objection to these pensions being paid, at least I have no objection. I have no objection to people receiving these gratuities and I have no objection to Judges being paid a decent salary and getting a reasonable pension, when they have done their work; but I would point out that there seems to be in the minds of hon. Members opposite the idea that, because these people are in this particular kind of service, they have an established right to a gratuity or to two years' salary if they lose their job, because I suppose they have created some goodwill, and that they have a right to pensions. I do not particularly disagree with that, but I wish we could succeed in bringing into the intelligences of hon. Members opposite that these rights ought to belong to all people, including miners.
What we complain about is that hon. Members opposite will make these distinctions. Of course Judges must be well paid and they must have a good pension, and hon. Members opposite will vote to the last letter in order to ensure that; but when it comes to the miner, the railwayman or any man who works with his hands, then in regard to every penny that he wants for pension, even when he contributes towards it, hon. Members opposite take up an entirely opposite point of view and fight tooth and nail against it. That is what we resent, and that is why we take this opportunity of pointing out the difference in treatment. It may be that these highly placed men are worth £4,000 or £2,000. It may be that they are worth more money than a miner, which may be because they have a better trade union, but I wish hon. Members would adopt that same attitude when they come to consider questions affecting miners and working men generally. That is our bone of contention with hon. Members opposite. That is why we do not apologise for having raised this question to-night. We shall raise it on every available issue, in order to point out to the Government and to the people of the country the distinction which the Government makes between
people in one class of society and people in another class.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will try to reply shortly to all the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) raised questions which have also been alluded to by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) in connection with the retiring allowances or gratuities to be paid to the registrars and clerks. It will be understood that the reduced number of registrars from 40 to 11 has been done in part under the 1925 Act, and will now be completed by this Bill. But you must provide for some inducement in order to facilitate and hasten the retirement of officers who are now to be superannuated. Some of the registrars are, and some of the clerks will become established civil servants entitled as such under the Superannuation Acts to pensions. This Bill proposes to grant special gratuities, that is to say, a gratuity in each case, not a repeated gratuity but a single gratuity, calculated in some cases at twice the salary being paid at the moment of retirement. The hon. Member for Doneaster asked me if I could give the figures. I am afraid, as the salaries vary, that I cannot give him the figures, but I am sure he will take it from me that the clerks have for the most part been underpaid, and the gratuities which they will receive, if they elect to retire, will be of a comparatively modest nature, and I do not think will shock the feelings of anyone. I cannot give details farther than that; their salaries vary I suppose between £200, £300 and £400 a year.
I was asked a question also as to the Clause which provides that they shall become members of the Civil Service, and rather a dark suggestion was made that this was part of a plot on the part of the Government to impose the conditions of the Trade Unions Act upon them. If the Government is a plotter their fellow conspirators are the persons concerned, because they have been applying with great insistence for the privilege of becoming civil servants, and this Bill proposes to concede them a privilege which they have long coveted and in consequence of which they will now become entitled to pensions, which are really deferred pay, under the Superannuation Acts. Nobody need be established as a
civil servant who does not desire to be established, and if he does not desire to be, he will forfeit the privileges associated with that condition. The hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) dealt with a number of matters some of which are in the Bill and some are not. I may say, generally, that it illustrates in one moment the difficulty of passing a Bill of this sort into law and the necessity for the Bill.
There are so many matters which require to be dealt with that, obviously, I should not be able to induce the House to assent to the passing of this Bill if it was not confined to comparatively modest limits. This Bill, I gather from the criticisms, is about as much as the House is prepared to accept at the present moment. I hope the criticisms of the hon. and learned Member as to some of the matters which are not included will be regarded by the House as a testimonial to our moderation, and if we can induce the House to take a further dose next Session it may be possible to do so. With regard to the proceedings in the case of the Crown, it is conceded that the Committee was by no means in agreement on that matter. It is true a Bill was introduced, but only a Bill on the hypothesis that it was desirable to adopt the proposals in question. That was Lord Haldane's instructions to the Committee. If we had attempted to deal with that matter in this Bill, I am sure we should not be securing its passage in the pleasant and easy way in which I now hope to do.

Sir H. SLESSER: I did not suggest that this Bill should deal with all those points. What I asked the hon. and learned Gentleman was whether he could give us any hope that any part of the report of that committee is likely to be introduced in the near future.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot say that it is likely to be introduced in this Session, and it may be desirable, as the last Committee was directed by Lord Haldane not to consider the merits of the proposals, still to have them examined on their merits. At any rate, it was not possible to put the reform into this Bill. The hon. Member asked a question about the arbitration law. Mr. Justice MacKinnon presided over a committee which, similarly, made a report
on those proposals, but that also is a subject which could not find a place in this Bill without overloading the Bill and taking the matter out of the Measure which would be the proper one to deal with it. As regards the question of the increase of Judges, again that is a matter which would have to be dealt with on another occasion. Perhaps it will be desirable that it should be dealt with, if hon. Members opposite agree, and I am sure I should be only too glad to join with them. Some observations have been made upon the question of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. My references to it will be quite short, as the proposals originally in the Bill have been dropped. The mere fact that some hon. Members have considered that the provision proposed was inadequate while others think that it went too far, illustrates possibly the wisdom of those who desire to get the Bill through, in dropping these provisions.
We shall take advantage of the advice which we have had from all quarters as to the proper way in which to frame a Bill to deal with the Privy Council, and when a suitable opportunity arises we may perhaps secure provisions better designed to promote the efficiency of that great tribunal. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked about the powers of the Court of Session in regard to revenue cases. They are exactly the same as the powers of the High Court of Justice. The Court of Session gives decisions on revenue cases in respect of persons domiciled in the hon. Member's country. He also asked about "walking possession" which is dealt with in Claus 19 of the Bill. That is a very interesting subject which would I am sure deserve a speech to itself, but it is sufficient to say that for 50 years or more there has been the practice known as walking possession. When a bailiff is put into a house it is very inconvenient that he should live in the kitchen and get in the way of the housewife, and so it has been the custom to give him what is called walking possession. That is to say, he goes in and takes possession, nominally, and then goes out again, but he is regarded as being in possession although not living in the house. That practice has had no legal warrant but it has proved very convenient to the humble persons who
may suffer this inconvenience and we propose to legalise it. That is all Clause 19 does, and I hope that having dealt with these matters the passage of the Bill through its remaining stages may now be secured.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I am sure the hon. Members for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and Doncaster (Mr. Paling) will be delighted with the speech of the Attorney-General who has dotted the i's and crossed the t's of their argument for common justice to all people concerned whatever their occupation. It is right to make provision for these people who may be regarded as rather higher than the miner or the railwayman. They must not be left out in the cold without sustenance. We come to plead for other people who are in exactly the same position. There are 200,000 of them who will never see work again without any provision whatever being made for them. I hope that hon. Members will listen with a quick ear to the arguments that will be put forward from these benches. After all, these people who have been denied are just as human as other people and require to be fed and clothed just as much. I claim for these people the same rights as for others. They have done their best for their country. I trust the Attorney-General will remember that We are pleading for some amelioration and that something may be given to keep these men and women and children alive. They have done their best for the country all through the days from 1914 to 1918, and they made heroes of themselves without having been compelled to go and fight. They went and did it, and they were ordered to come back to make provision for those who were fighting. They are now denied because of the ineptitude of the Government that we have had for the last few years. There is still one ray of hope and that will come in 1929 when you will be compelled to go to the country willy nilly. You have denied us the right to fight in the constituencies, but we will fight in them next year, and your orders will be marching orders if you do not take into consideration the rights of the people who want help.

Orders of the Day — Mr. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT.

KING'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.

Resolution reported,
That the annual sum of £4,000 net be granted to His Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the said annuity to commence and take effect upon the day upon which the Right Honourable John Henry Whitley, late Speaker of the House of Commons, ceased to hold the office of Speaker of the House of Commons, to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon and to continue during the life of him the said Right Honourable John Henry Whitley.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. A. M. Samuel.

Mr. SPEAKER'S RETIREMENT BILL,

"to settle and secure an annuity upon the Right Hon. John Henry Whitley in consideration of his eminent services"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, 2nd July, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a short Bill of four Clauses and is concerned purely with machinery, and is in no way contentious. The first Clause merely facilitates provisions for an appeal in the Northern Ireland Supreme Court. The second Clause deals with Regulations as to standards of agricultural procuce, and uniformity of administration in matters relating to the foreshores, and certain questions in connection with consolidating legislation in Northern Ireland which affect certain reserved services dealt with by Bills passed in this Parliament. The third Clause deals with the administration of intestate estates, and the fourth Clause is intended to try and simplify the procedure in regard to land purchase in Northern Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should like to draw attention to a curious thing about this Bill. At the back of it are the names of the Home Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office; but the name of the Secretary of State for the Dominions is not there. That strikes me as a rather curious omission. The other matter which I want to ask is with reference to Clause 3, which deals with the making of regulations for certain agricultural products to be exported to this country for the Irish Free State, and it gives to Northern Ireland the right to make regulations with regard to the grading of agricultural produce apparently, although it does not specifically say so. Why should we have to give the Northern Ireland Government such powers? Surely they have all jurisdiction of that kind within their borders. Also in Clause 2, Sub-section (4), there are provisions dealing with compensation for injury to mariners, to the pilot service, to the deep-sea fishermen, and so on. I thought we handed over these services to the Parliament in Belfast, and I am surprised that this House should still have to spend time late at night in discussing such a Measure. It is non-controversial in that the more they take over such responsibilities, the better for us. This House is over-burdened with responsibilities, and it is very curious, after we have set up a Government in Northern Ireland, that it should come to us for what appears on the face of it to be comparatively trivial details.

Sir V. HENDERSON: The Dominion Office has nothing to do with Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is, for purposes of communication between this Government and the Government of Northern Ireland, like the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Therefore, there is no reason why the name of the Secretary of State for the Dominions should appear on the back of the Bill. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member raised the other two points, because it enables me to say something that escaped my memory, and that is that this Bill is one of urgency, because we have found that doubts have been raised as to whether powers which were
given to the Government of Northern Ireland under the original Act have been given, and we wish to make it quite clear that they have these powers. The Government of Northern Ireland have no power to legislate with regard to trade with another country, but they certainly were entitled to have the opportunity to legislate with regard to standards of agricultural produce. It is because there is that doubt that we wish those words to be inserted. In the same way, with regard to merchant seamen, when they recently passed a Bill dealing with workmen's compensation, they desired to insert provisions in it dealing with compensation to merchant seamen, and then the question was raised as to whether they were not exceeding their powers by so doing. Therefore, as It was consolidating legislation, we have inserted these provisions and the other provisions to make it quite clear that they have that power.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Bill give these powers permanently, and does it close in that gap which we thought we had not left when the original Bill was before us?

Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes, the Bill will make these powers permanent, and as certain legislation in Northern Ireland has been held up I hope the House will give me all stages of the Bill to-night.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Sir V. Henderson.]

Bill considered accordingly in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 Provisions as to the Supreme Court) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Explanation of restrictions in Section 4 of principal Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to ask a question with regard to Sub-section (4), a matter of detail but of some importance. Under that Subsection we give powers to the Government of Northern Ireland in connection with
compensation for injury to master seamen and apprentices in the Merchant Service and pilots and apprentices in the fishing service. Is it the intention of the Government of Northern Ireland to lay down a scale of compensation not inferior to that ruling in this country? A certain number of these seamen and pilots were originally subjects of this Parliament alone, and I want to make it certain that the Government of Northern Ireland have no power to worsen their conditions as regards compensation for injury at sea.

Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member can rest assured that the scales are the same in both cases.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any power to alter them? Can they be lowered?

Sir V. HENDERSON: No, I do not think so. This is consolidating legislation dealing with workmen's compensation, and this particular bit of it, which is really a re-enactment of an Imperial Statute, is desired to be put in so as to make the consolidation complete, because otherwise it would be only partial. In doing so we want to make it clear that they have that power, but there is no intention
of enabling them to adopt a lower standard of compensation in Northern Ireland as compared with England.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They cannot do it in the future?

Sir V. HENDERSON: No, not as I am advised.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 3 (Administration of intestates estates devolving on the Crown), 4 (Amendment of Land Purchase Acts), and 5 (Short title and construction), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'clock.